From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 08/06/03-09:19:02 AM Z
I would like to add a few comments about inkjet negatives.
My first work with inkjet negatives began about a year ago. In early
2002 Mark Nelson scanned a 5X7" negative for me with his Imacon
scanner at about 1500dpi. I cleaned up the file with Photoshop, made
some tonal corrections, applied a small amount of unsharp make, then
applied one of the Pt/Pd curves from the CD of Dan Burkholder's book,
and finished by making a negative on Pictorico with the Epson 2000P.
The first Pt/Pd toned Kallitype print I made from this negative told
me that I was really on to something because when I compared the
print (13X18") to a silver print (16X20") that I had made by
projection in the darkroom from the same negative there really was no
comparison. The Kallitype made from the inkjet negative was a much
superior print. Why? The print from the inkjet negative had greater
apparent sharpness and the tonal values were also much better. Of all
the qualities we associate with good prints, such as apparent
sharpness, tonality, smoothness, grain, there was really not a single
thing about the silver print that I found better, except for the
brilliance of the shiny glossy surface. A master silver printer could
have no doubt improved on the silver image by applying some of the
same controls (selective contrast, unsharp mask, etc.) in the
darkroom I applied through Photoshop, but at what cost of time and
effort?
One of the major *key* to making good digital negatives is the curve
that is applied to the image. As noted, my first work with digital
negatives and kallitypes was based on a generic pt/pd curve from
Dan's book. I recently began working with another curve, one
developed specifically for the Epson 2000P and my palladium toned
kallitype printing process. This curve was developed using Mark
Nelson' method now being beta tested by a few people on this list.
The great advantage of a curve developed according to Mark's system
is that it is calibrated to your computer monitor, method of negative
output and printing process, thereby assuring an almost perfect 1:1
transfer of the tones seen on the monitor to the final print. And the
method works with any method of negative output, (service bureau or
inkjet), and any process.
Sandy King
>Hey Mateo!
>
>At APIS (you shoulda been there!) I saw some palladium prints that
>Keith Schreiber made from Pyro-colored inkjet negs, as well as a
>couple of Sandy King's Pd-toned Kallitypes made from negs output
>with the Epson 2000P. These prints were all in the 11x14 to 12x18
>range. I believe Keith's originals were 8x10 and Sandy's were 5x7.
>The prints were beautiful. Smoooooth tones and as sharp and detailed
>as any sane person would want. I've started having some success
>with Pyro-inkjets on my Epson 1280 printer after fighting with some
>banding problems. I also just picked up an Epson 2000P CHEAP, so
>I'll be trying Sandy's approach next. I know you can't tell much
>from a JPG, but the opening image on my website (www.kerik.com) is a
>gum-over-platinum made with a Pyro-inkjet neg from a 6 megapixel
>Canon 10D file. The original print is really quite nice.
>
>Is it 'the same' as a print from an in-camera neg? No. Does that matter? No.
>Could I have gotten this shot with a 12x20 camera?
>Not a chance.
>
>I have no plans to give up film, but it's nice to have more options
>at my disposal. You're too young to be a stick-in-the-mud! (insert
>smiley face here).
>
>Later,
>Kerik
>
>>I know this is sort of redundant, but my question goes like this.
>>
>>Can I make 8"x10" Platinum/Palladium prints from inkjet negatives
>>that look the same as prints made from my 8"x10" in camera
>>negatives on Arches Platine. I asked the kid at Best Buy while
>>looking at printers and he didn't know.
>>
>>In the past discussions I seem to detect a lot of buts. "These
>>inkjet negs are really great and print fantastic, but......."
>>Still true?
>>
>>mateo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:45 AM Z CST