--------- WOW! RIGHT UP MY ALLEY!
I'LL QUOTE SOME EARIER POSTINGS TO PUT MY
COMMENTS/QUESTIONS INTO CONTEXT
> I have almost the same printer and have plans to do the same thing in
> January. One thing to ask when purchasing it is if you can print
> transparancies at that high resolution.
> I think I saw others mention on this list that it is possible to use
> work from photoshop etc. printed on a transparancy as a contact
> negative. Is this process a little too alternative for this list?
> David Green
>
>
> > I have been useing an inkjet to print on coated
> >transparency film for use a photomask. Although
> >not perfect by any means when compared to the output
> >of a typeseter on film the results are passable for
> >corse line work.
> > I am considering buying an epson stylus pro printer
> >which has twice the resolution 720dpi. is there anybody
> >useing it for same or something similar. Any ideas/sujestions
> >would be very much appreciated.
> >Stuart
David, Stuart, et al:
I am doing pretty much what you asked/described -- scanning
images and running them through Photoshop 3.0 to transparency
output, for use as contact masks! I joined this mailing list
SPECIFICALLY to swap info related to the process.
I'm using an Epson Stylus Color printer (recently replaced by
the colorPro and StylusII models). I offer the following
observations, based on my experience during the past few months:
--First, note that my application involves transferring images onto a
photosensitive polymer (plate), rather than photographic paper.
The relevent point here is that my plate only has a "grain" or
resolution of 0.003". This, I believe, equates with approximately
360dpi masking, so my successful experience may not translate
to someone masking photographic paper--
1) this printer produces excellent transparencies at either 360 or
720dpi. However, you must switch resolutions, depending on the
density of a particular mask (720 blotches a bit on the
transparency film for dense masks -- 360 overexposes, or worded
differently, does not adequately mask large solid areas.)
2) My application requires only b/w transparencies, but I have tested
this printer's color trans output, and was THRILLED!
3) Using Photoshop for this process has held many benefits for
me, but a few drawbacks as well. Regarding the above, I was
amazed to find that the print alignment (registration?) is so
precise using this printer/sw combination that I can (and
accidently did) allow the ink to dry on the film and then run
the transparency back through the printer and output the image
(perfectly aligned!) to the same sheet -- for intensely
beautiful color saturation.
4) This printer/sw combination also allows color correction. Not only
can you "work in" your choice of RGB or CYMK, if you have
a scanner you can rescan your output to show your computer (?)
what outputX from printDirectionsX looks like and it will color
correct the palate (which you can save for future use).
5) One drawback was Photoshop's insistent centering of the image on
the page! Most of my masks are small, and I balked at the cost of
transparency film as well as the inconvenience of having to cut
full sheets (which are larger than the contact frame in my
application)....Solution "A" was to use a paper cutter to whack
a strip off the bottom (and subsequently the side) of a sheet to
be sent back through the printer. This "changed the center" of
the sheet, which is the target area for Photoshop's output.
This allowed me to have multiple (work in progress drafts)
on one sheet, with room for annotation.....but, SOLUTION "B"
IS MY MONEY-SAVING TIP FOR THE DAY! DON'T WASTE
FULL SHEETS OF TRANSPARENCY FILM! Just check your
image size in Photoshop before printing (or print a dry-run onto
plain paper) and cut/use a piece of film of the proper size --
center the piece of film on a piece of paper and tape it along
all four edges...The paper/film combination runs through the
printer path just fine. After printing, use an X-Acto knife to
cut the tape along the film borders.
6) If you want to retouch your mask (inkjet ink on trans), you can:
a) subtract/cut areas by lightly scratching with a
toothpick or knife point
b) add density/correct by overdrawing with a fine-point
PERMANENT marker (Sanford, Sharpie, etc)
7) I do not believe that either of the newer Epson models would
serve me any better in this application. Buying the more
expensive (stylusPro) seems like overkill, as related to
transparency output applications.
Jeff Skerlec
:-: