Re: For those who are interested in making digital negatives using pigmented inksets

Ryuji Suzuki wrote:

>From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
>Subject: Re: For those who are interested in making digital
>negatives using pigmented inksets
>Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:44:38 -0500
>
>> In my opinion in-camera originals offer no advantage at
>> all with processes where the final print is on an art or drawing
>> paper, as would be the case with Pt/Pd, kallitype, VDB, etc. In fact,
>> because of the corrections we able to apply in Photoshop I would even
>> go so far as to say that the prints from digital negatives are
>> superior, in some cases remarkably so.
>>
>> This observation would probably not be true with a process like AZO
>> where the final image is on a smooth surface. In fact, even with my
>> carbon images on smooth surfaces I can see a slight superiority to
>> images made from in-camera negatives, but the difference is very
>> small indeed.
>
>Are you referring to the "resolution" limit due to the paper surface
>and that due to inkjet negative?
>
>Say I can make an acceptable 13x enlargement on factory made b&w paper
>but I can make acceptable enlargements much bigger than that on home
>made silver gelatin emulsion coated on Rives BFK. I'm still trying to
>push the limit of enlargement factor by changing the enlarger setup,
>but with some preliminary tests, I can make 20-25x enlargements as
>long as I can coat, dry, and process successfully. So that's a full
>watercolor paper size image from 35mm negative (of course 13x looks
>better, but I'm comparing limits of "acceptable" enlargements).
>
>So coming back to inkjet negative. I have never made it myself, but
>I'm very curious how much you think 5x7 inkjet negative can be
>enlarged for printing on some emulsion coated on hot pressed paper
>stock? Have you ever put your inkjet neg in an enlarger?
>
>Silver gelatin emulsion coated on Rives BFK looks like image is "in"
>the paper not "on" the paper. So the influence of surface texture is
>similar to other processes unless the paper is coated with baryta
>(or alkyd or something).
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>Ryuji Suzuki
>"Reality has always had too many heads." (Bob Dylan, Cold Irons Bound, 1997)

Yes, I am referring to the resolution limit due to the paper surface.
In other words, no mater how sharp your negative may be there is a
limited amount of resolution that a watercolor or drawing paper can
convey. If you look at an inkjet negative from a printer like the
Epson 2000P with a loupe you will see a definite dithering pattern
that would be visible if you printed on a smooth surface like AZO or
some other silver gelatin surface. However, when printing on art and
drawing papers, including vellum, the texture of the paper does not
allow this pattern to reproduce.

How tonal values are rendered is another issue but the use of 16 bit
scans makes that issue moot, in my opinion.

I have not tried to expose my inkjet negatives with an enlarger onto
silver gelatin paper but I am fairly certain that the dithering
pattern would result in a significant loss of image quality. Given
the rapid advance in the field I think it highly likely that in the
near future the quality of printers will be improved to the point
that the making of digital inkjet negatives for silver gelatin
printing on smooth papers will be possible, but we do not appear to
be there yet.

Sandy King
Received on Wed Dec 31 14:46:08 2003