RE: Digital Negs - breaking the rules

Well Gentleman, I have both set ups, an Epson 7000 with Cone Sepia Inks that
runs with IP 6.0 and I also have a 4800 but not set up to run with IP. I
have both substrates in stock. The sepia inks do stay on the Photoware House
UCF and while I was mostly happy with those results, I was not completely
satisfied. I also have the Pictorico OHP and have only run limited test(too
many irons on the fire right now), the MK inks sat well. I did make one
test print but more are planned. The new Epson drivers are so much better
than the old ones; the digineg will go through yet one more make over.

Cone was of no help in working with their inks. I asked if they had any
data on the UV characteristics of any of their inks and all I got back was a
blank stare. I have a set of cool tone inks as well, but don't really have
time to run tests on them. I believe that Dan Burkholder had run some tests
with the 2400?

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loris Medici [mailto:mail@loris.medici.name]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 6:03 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Digital Negs - breaking the rules
>
> Carlos I don't have experience with Epson Ultrachrome inks but... Once,
> I was using Piezography quadtone carbon pigment inks (Selenium tone,
> Museum Black) for making enlarged negatives. These inks were performing
> bad on Pictorico (easily smear, can transfer to the print, couldn't
> print from the same negative most times...). Then I switched to
> Photowarehouse Ultrafine Crystal Clear Transparencies (thanks again
> Christina)... Piezography inks were almost bulletproof on that
> substrate.
>
> Maybe you can ask list members if Ultrachromes perform similarly on
> Ultrafine. If someone can confirm that Ultrachrome inkset gets along
> well with Ultrafine, then you can try some sheets of it... (But
> Ultrafine has its own problems; such as being too thin - feeding
> problems(?) - and causing venetian blinds effect - something related to
> being thin and/or coating incosistencies(?).
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Gasparinho [mailto:gasparinho@mac.com]
> Sent: 17 Şubat 2006 Cuma 13:39
> To: alt-photo-process-L@usask.ca
> Subject: Digital Negs - breaking the rules
>
>
> Good day to everyone from the west corner of Europe,
>
> I will start next week new tests to produce digital negs for
> Platinum/palladium print and kallitype printing.
>
> The difference is that I do not want to exchange the matte black I use
> for everything else for the photo black. And the matte black has a
> tendency to run on the OHP Pictorico.
>
> Equipment + material + software I will be using
>
> Flextight 848 scanner
> PowerMac G5
> Epson 7800
> Epson 9600
> Pictorico OHP
> Adobe Photoshop CS2
> ImagePrint 6 (RIP software by ColorByte)
>
> ColorByte now has profiles that allow for the use of Matte black and
> Photo Black on the 7800 printer. They call it Phatte Black, and the idea
> is to replace the light-light black cartridge by the matte black (we
> need also to replace the chip on the cartrigde). This would make things
> much easier. Still I do not agree with them when they say that there is
> no difference in quality, as I believe that the new light-light black
> color makes a difference when printing both in color and B/W.
>
> So I am back to square one. I want to keep the Matte black in the
> printer.
>
> My idea is to print chromogenic negatives, limiting or eliminating the
> use of matte black. Because the 7800 uses two more blacks, light and
> light-light and their drying characteristics similar to the photo black,
> I believe that by increasing the levels of these two inks, acceptable
> results may be achieved.
>
> The Image Print software has an ink limit feature that I am planning to
> use for this.
>
> Before I start throwing money out of the window, has anyone already done
> some research along these lines?
>
> All help will be appreciated.
>
> Carlos Gasparinho
Received on Fri Feb 17 09:18:01 2006