Re: Digital Negative & Imagesetter Negs

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Clyde Rogers (xrogers@attbi.com)
Date: 03/05/03-08:28:52 AM Z


Another recommendation for Peter at Copygraphics. I've ftp'd him files
a couple of times, and save on shipping by going for a two day return.
It seems that they typically run the negatives the day they get the
files. Great negatives, unlike what I get locally...

So, on the topic of imagesetters...I can't get the same smooth look (in
pt/pd printing) from any inkjet negative I've run (my inkjet negs look
good, but are grainy by comparison). Is anyone getting really smooth
inkjet negatives, or is that look a reason to stick to the imagesetter?

The most promising inkjet negatives I've done were with
piezography---very sharp. Unfortunately, they had visible banding that
showed in prints (but in between the bands, they sure looked good).
1270 negatives were also good, but not as nice as piezo between the
bands. The best inkjet negative I've done overall was a test on a
store's 2200. Not even a hint of banding, but a coarser, grainier look
than either the 1270 or piezo.

Scans of all these negatives show at magnification what I see in
prints. Imagesetter negatives have the most detail, and few visible
artifacts (slight banding too faint to appear in prints). My piezo
negatives show great detail but have obvious banding. My 1270
negatives have a hint of banding (not visible on prints), and clearly
have the weakest, clumpiest dithering pattern of all my tests. The
2200 negative had a grittier look than the others, and less detail than
the imagesetter, but were artifact free (even better than the
imagesetter)---no hint of banding, and really beautiful, smooth
dithering throughout their range.

Is anyone out there getting a really smooth negative (comparable to an
imagesetter) from a 2200, or some other printer?

Thanks,

--clyde

On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 07:33 AM, Clay wrote:

> I'll second the strong recommendation for Peter Ellzey and
> Copygraphics.

> From: <FDanB@aol.com>
>> Copy Graphics in Santa Fe is making very good negs for photographers.
>> If
>> you've prepared your image properly (correct contrast curve, no
>> artifacts, etc.) they'll give you a good neg.


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:24 PM Z CST