Hello, I'm having nothing but trouble trying to print digital negatives on an Epson 2200. I am scanning the 4x5 negatives in at 2800dpi on an Epson 4990, dodging and burning in Photoshop, and printing out on the 2200 at the same size (4x5) using DAS TransFilm. The 8x10 enlargements show so much "grain" that they look as if they were printed at 72dpi!

The Photoshop files look pristine even at enormous magnification. In my print settings I am using "Enhanced Matte Paper" (Premium Glossy was significantly worse) and SuperPhoto 2880dpi. The darks on the print aren't too bad, but the light areas and especilly those ares where lights meet darks, are just awful. It's giving me flashbacks to trying to print "photo quality" on desktop computers fifteen years ago.

I've looked through the forums and done lots of searches but haven't seen any solutions posted. Right now I'm not trying to do anything alternative with these, just straight enlargements on Ilford MG RC paper to see if I can get the enlargements to work. With all of the luck people seem to be having I'd sure appreciate hearing from folks on what printer settings they're using to achieve those.

Hello, I'm having nothing but trouble trying to print digital negatives on an Epson 2200. I am scanning the 4x5 negatives in at 2800dpi on an Epson 4990, dodging and burning in Photoshop, and printing out on the 2200 at the same size (4x5) using DAS TransFilm. The 8x10 enlargements show so much "grain" that they look as if they were printed at 72dpi!



I use the Epson 2200 to print digital negatives on Pictorico and the Photo Warehouse Crystal Clear transparency film. There is some grain on my negatives, but nothing like what you describe. I would describe it as more like what you see if you were to enlarge a 4X5 negative on a medium speed film to 20X24".

I use Mark Nelson's PDN system for calibrating, and print out on an Epson 2200 with the media setting on glossy paper. What process do you hope to use the digital negatives with, and how are you designing the curve?

Sandy

Sandy

From the sounds of it you are enlarging your digital negs. You can only use this combo for halfway decent results if you contact print. If you want digital negs to enlarge the only way is to use a film recorder. I also get much better results for contact printing using a film recorder as well instead of the inkjet, but that is another discussion...

Hi Sandy, thanks for the quick reply. At this point the only process I hope to do is dodge and burn in Photoshop and use the negatives for traditional enlargements.

As far as curves go, I tried using a few with awful (flat) results. Getting back to basics I tried scanning the negative in and printing it out with no adjustments. This gave me, in effect, a duplicate negative (looks the same to my eyes). It prints out almost identically except that it is quite grainy. I don't imagine that adjusting the curves will help the graininess, will it?

I use the Epson 2200 to print digital negatives on Pictorico and the Photo Warehouse Crystal Clear transparency film. There is some grain on my negatives, but nothing like what you describe. I would describe it as more like what you see if you were to enlarge a 4X5 negative on a medium speed film to 20X24".

I use Mark Nelson's PDN system for calibrating, and print out on an Epson 2200 with the media setting on glossy paper. What process do you hope to use the digital negatives with, and how are you designing the curve?

Sandy

Sandy

From the sounds of it you are enlarging your digital negs. You can only use this combo for halfway decent results if you contact print. If you want digital negs to enlarge the only way is to use a film recorder. I also get much better results for contact printing using a film recorder as well instead of the inkjet, but that is another discussion...

That was my hope, yes, to use the scanned negative to dodge and burn digitally, then print it out and proceed as normal in the darkroom with enlarging and traditional processing.

It seems that I've read about people doing this left and right around here. Perhaps it was all just wishful thinking? Or maybe the discussions just assumed contact printing was the end result and it went without saying.

Or maybe the discussions just assumed contact printing was the end result and it went without saying.

I think that is it.

That was my hope, yes, to use the scanned negative to dodge and burn digitally, then print it out and proceed as normal in the darkroom with enlarging and traditional processing.

It seems that I've read about people doing this left and right around here. Perhaps it was all just wishful thinking? Or maybe the discussions just assumed contact printing was the end result and it went without saying.

Yep. I sure assumed you were contact printing when I read your post the first time.

Your output resolution is limited by your printer which I would assume is printing somewhere around 240-360 dpi at full size. You enlarge that to 8x10 and you have quartered the resolution so now you are doing an effective 60-90 dpi (I think) .

I once blew up a digitized 35mm frame in an enlargerto about 16x20 because I needed to trace the outline of the image onto a canvas. The ink dot pattern looked liked golfballs.

You'll have to go the imagesetter route.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The printer claims to output at 2880 dpi. That's what my image is set to and the printer is set to. I'm dubious of that claim, but that's what they say...

Yep. I sure assumed you were contact printing when I read your post the first time.

Your output resolution is limited by your printer which I would assume is printing somewhere around 240-360 dpi at full size. You enlarge that to 8x10 and you have quartered the resolution so now you are doing an effective 60-90 dpi (I think) .

I once blew up a digitized 35mm frame in an enlargerto about 16x20 because I needed to trace the outline of the image onto a canvas. The ink dot pattern looked liked golfballs.

You'll have to go the imagesetter route.

In an effort to not be so cripplingly stupid (sorry, I'm very new at this!) I decided to put two and two together and ended up with three and a half.

In Photoshop I enlarged my file from 4x5 to 8x10 and reduced the dpi from 2880 to 1440 (just a rough test). I printed out the 8x10 and made my very first ever contact print onto standard Ilford MG RC paper. The result was quite a lot better than enlarging the 4x5 in the enlarger, but still not great. The shadows look great, and the transitions from dark to light are pretty good, but the light tones are still riddled with grain.

Now that might be the best I can expect, I'm not sure. I realize now that most people are doing alt processes in which some of this is probably cured either by the paper choice or the process itself.

Is there any reason to expect a straight contact print onto standard enlarging paper to look as good as an enlargment of the original negative? Am I chasing an impossible (with desktop scanner and printer) dream? If I am that's okay, I would just like to figure it out sooner than later.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The printer claims to output at 2880 dpi. That's what my image is set to and the printer is set to. I'm dubious of that claim, but that's what they say...

I'm certainly far from an expert on this but I believe those output figures are interpolated and inflated. My understanding is that the resolution of an inkjet printer is somewhere around 300dpi. (I believe laser printers can do 600 dpi.) The printer is just overlapping areas to get the manufacturer's numbers. (You might investigate this on one of the sites dealing with digital printing. You'll just upset the folks on this site by posting such printing hardware questions here.)

You are correct in assuming the texture of the alternative processes is helping mask the dot pattern.

Rescanning the image at the highest resolution possible at the exact output size for your contact print should improve your results as should applying a correction curve for the specific material being used.

Most people doing this with silver gelatin papers are targeting AZO paper which is a contact paper. Does your transparency material have a texture that might be adding to the grainy look? Most use Pictorico OHP.

Joe

I figured they were inflating through some sort of gimmicky method, I just didn't realize how much! I haven't attempted to do any serious printing in years when I got burned by claims before.

I'll try rescanning at the target output size, that's a great idea. Hopefully I won't go insane and try to print 18x20 any time soon!

The transparency material doesn't look like it's contributing. I got a tip from a thread in this forum about this particular brand being a great (less expensive) alternative to OHP. Of course thay may have been only one person's experience for their particular mothodology.

This is really going to let you know where I'm at, but why the curve? I understand that certain processes require certain settings to mimic the particular aspects that would otherwise come about in the darkroom, but for straight silver it doesn't seem necassary. To me. I fully understand that others find it to be, and they may be doing completely different types of prints from me (almost certainly as I almost only do extreme macros of insects and spiders), but it seems to me in my tests that not adjusting curves gives me the exact same final image as a straight enlargement from my original negative. I'm just getting some grain. I'm honestly just asking because I don't know, not because I think I know better! Would adjusting the curves somehow reduce grain?? If you think it might then I'm game!

I'm certainly far from an expert on this but I believe those output figures are interpolated and inflated. My understanding is that the resolution of an inkjet printer is somewhere around 300dpi. (I believe laser printers can do 600 dpi.) The printer is just overlapping areas to get the manufacturer's numbers. (You might investigate this on one of the sites dealing with digital printing. You'll just upset the folks on this site by posting such printing hardware questions here.)

You are correct in assuming the texture of the alternative processes is helping mask the dot pattern.

Rescanning the image at the highest resolution possible at the exact output size for your contact print should improve your results as should applying a correction curve for the specific material being used.

Most people doing this with silver gelatin papers are targeting AZO paper which is a contact paper. Does your transparency material have a texture that might be adding to the grainy look? Most use Pictorico OHP.

Joe

Well, I guess "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here.

I've never tried silver gelatin prints from a digineg before. My experience is either with gum bichromate where I have to lower the contrast, or van dyke brown which takes a negative with extreme correction to print correctly.

I certainly agree! It's just tht I've learned so much from people here that I figure everyone has done everything that I can imagine already. I also realize that even so I often end up doing things that others haven't, and some others might benefit from my limited experiences.

I am interested in alternative processes, so I'm sure that eventually I will be coming back for more information on those. Right now I'm just trying to get the basics down first.

Thank you very much for the suggestions!

Well, I guess "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here.

I've never tried silver gelatin prints from a digineg before. My experience is either with gum bichromate where I have to lower the contrast, or van dyke brown which takes a negative with extreme correction to print correctly.

The problem isn't that the printer isn't putting down 2880 dpi (dots per inch), but rather that the dots are not the same as the pixels you are thinking of. Said anotherway each pixel is made of many dots. The Epsons all resize to either 360 or 720 pixels per inch ppi (depending on print mode and printer model). Thus they are really only suitable for contact printing.

Image setters are the same, by the way, so don't fall for the 3000dpi can be enlarged 10x fallicy. If you want to enlarge you really need a continuous tone film recorder. I get decent results in the 5x enlargement range with mine, though mainly I use it for contact prints.

Hello, I'm having nothing but trouble trying to print digital negatives on an Epson 2200. I am scanning the 4x5 negatives in at 2800dpi on an Epson 4990, dodging and burning in Photoshop, and printing out on the 2200 at the same size (4x5) using DAS TransFilm. The 8x10 enlargements show so much "grain" that they look as if they were printed at 72dpi!

The Photoshop files look pristine even at enormous magnification. In my print settings I am using "Enhanced Matte Paper" (Premium Glossy was significantly worse) and SuperPhoto 2880dpi. The darks on the print aren't too bad, but the light areas and especilly those ares where lights meet darks, are just awful. It's giving me flashbacks to trying to print "photo quality" on desktop computers fifteen years ago.

I've looked through the forums and done lots of searches but haven't seen any solutions posted. Right now I'm not trying to do anything alternative with these, just straight enlargements on Ilford MG RC paper to see if I can get the enlargements to work. With all of the luck people seem to be having I'd sure appreciate hearing from folks on what printer settings they're using to achieve those.


There are really two issues here, grain and sharpness.

About grain, there is no solution. Digital negatives from an Epson 2200 have a grain pattern that results from the mechanism by which way the pigmented ink is laid down and the Pico liter size of the ink droplets. There is nothing you can do about this. If you contact print all of your prints, regardless of size, will have the same grain look. If you enlarge such a digital negative, you double the grain every time you double the magnification. As you can see, this makes the grain unbearable very quickly.

With alternative printing, where the final image is on water color and drawing papers, the texture of the papers eliminates the grain pattern. However, if you contact print on smooth surface silver papers the grain pattern will be clearly visible, most noticeable in the higher mi-tone areas.
It has about the look you would get in enlarging a 4X5 negative HP5+ or TRI-X negative to 20X24".

Sharpness is another issue. You should scan for final output at 360 ppi at the printing size. More than that does no good since, 1) output of inkjet printers on Pictorico and most OHP material is limited to a maximum of 360 dpi, and 2) very little increase in apparent sharpness is obtained even when the digital negatives that are printed at higher maximum dpi with other means, say film recorders and image setters.

Sandy

Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Thank you very much. I'm trying to be as sensitive as possible about not getting off into hardware-land, so I appreciate the info. I'm honestly not interested in the hardware end of things, just its use in wet photography.


The problem isn't that the printer isn't putting down 2880 dpi (dots per inch), but rather that the dots are not the same as the pixels you are thinking of. Said anotherway each pixel is made of many dots. The Epsons all resize to either 360 or 720 pixels per inch ppi (depending on print mode and printer model). Thus they are really only suitable for contact printing.

Image setters are the same, by the way, so don't fall for the 3000dpi can be enlarged 10x fallicy. If you want to enlarge you really need a continuous tone film recorder. I get decent results in the 5x enlargement range with mine, though mainly I use it for contact prints.

Thank you for the info! For real only 360dpi? Why does everyone go on about the need for newer scanners with their incredible dpi if that's the case? Or is that just the usual "latest is greatest" mentality?

These smooth-paper prints I'm doing are just tests. Ultimately I would like to print on textured paper, I just didn't want to waste the money and materials for what I knew would be a material-intensive process. Perhaps the grain will be better masked with those papers.

There are really two issues here, grain and sharpness.

About grain, there is no solution. Digital negatives from an Epson 2200 have a grain pattern that results from the mechanism by which way the pigmented ink is laid down and the Pico liter size of the ink droplets. There is nothing you can do about this. If you contact print all of your prints, regardless of size, will have the same grain look. If you enlarge such a digital negative, you double the grain every time you double the magnification. As you can see, this makes the grain unbearable very quickly.

With alternative printing, where the final image is on water color and drawing papers, the texture of the papers eliminates the grain pattern. However, if you contact print on smooth surface silver papers the grain pattern will be clearly visible, most noticeable in the higher mi-tone areas.
It has about the look you would get in enlarging a 4X5 negative HP5+ or TRI-X negative to 20X24".

Sharpness is another issue. You should scan for final output at 360 ppi at the printing size. More than that does no good since, 1) output of inkjet printers on Pectoris and most OHP material is limited to a maximum of 360 dpi, and 2) very little increase in apparent sharpness is obtained even when the digital negatives that are printed at higher maximum dpi with other means, say film recorders and image setters.

Sandy

About grain, there is no solution. Digital negatives from an Epson 2200 have a grain pattern that results from the mechanism by which way the pigmented ink is laid down and the Pico liter size of the ink droplets. There is nothing you can do about this. If you contact print all of your prints, regardless of size, will have the same grain look. If you enlarge such a digital negative, you double the grain every time you double the magnification. As you can see, this makes the grain unbearable very quickly.

Then might it be advisable to make a final print that is smaller than the negative? I'm not sure how one would do this, but it seems to me that it is possible.

Thank you for the info! For real only 360dpi? Why does everyone go on about the need for newer scanners with their incredible dpi if that's the case? Or is that just the usual "latest is greatest" mentality?

Well, consider that most quality scanners for films are limited to 4x5 and that most people want larger prints. To print a 4x5 from a 4x5 original you'd only need to scan at 360 ppi. To get 8x10 you need 400% and suddenly you are up to scanning at 720 ppi, or 1440 for a 16x20. Now that's not too bad but consider starting with a smaller negative and trying to achieve similar quality. That's why you need expensive scanners capable of 4000 ppi to get decent quality from a 35mm negative with large prints. Or, in your case, you need the higher resolution to make a digital neg for contact printing at a larger size than the original.

In terms of the printer, I think the higher interpolated resolutions look smoother because of how the ink drops are sprayed and overlapped, and the texture of the paper also helps, but the inkdrop size is still the same if I understand this correctly (of which I'm not sure). So, the "grain" (droplet size) in the print doesn't change but how it is distributed does.

About grain, there is no solution. Digital negatives from an Epson 2200 have a grain pattern that results from the mechanism by which way the pigmented ink is laid down and the Pico liter size of the ink droplets. There is nothing you can do about this.
Sandy,

Interesting to read this. I've heard similar complaints/observations from others using pigment printers. For images with lots of detail and texture, the grain isn't really a problem. For smooth-tone or foggy images, the grain really gets in the way for me. I'm using an Epson 1280 (dye inks) and don't have issues with grain. I've been putting off getting a newer/bigger printer because of this issue, and will continue to do so.

Kerik
www.kerik.com

I'm using an Epson 1280 (dye inks) and don't have issues with grain. I've been putting off getting a newer/bigger printer because of this issue, and will continue to do so.

Kerik, I was doing the same thing until my 1280 died today and I decided to go ahead and "upgrade" to the 2200.

Makes perfect sense, thank you again!

Well, consider that most quality scanners for films are limited to 4x5 and that most people want larger prints. To print a 4x5 from a 4x5 original you'd only need to scan at 360 ppi. To get 8x10 you need 400% and suddenly you are up to scanning at 720 ppi, or 1440 for a 16x20. Now that's not too bad but consider starting with a smaller negative and trying to achieve similar quality. That's why you need expensive scanners capable of 4000 ppi to get decent quality from a 35mm negative with large prints. Or, in your case, you need the higher resolution to make a digital neg for contact printing at a larger size than the original.

In terms of the printer, I think the higher interpolated resolutions look smoother because of how the ink drops are sprayed and overlapped, and the texture of the paper also helps, but the inkdrop size is still the same if I understand this correctly (of which I'm not sure). So, the "grain" (droplet size) in the print doesn't change but how it is distributed does.

So make an 8x10 print from a 12x18 negative or something like that? Using a reducer instead of an enlarger? That is a very interesting idea!

Then might it be advisable to make a final print that is smaller than the negative? I'm not sure how one would do this, but it seems to me that it is possible.

So make an 8x10 print from a 12x18 negative or something like that? Using a reducer instead of an enlarger? That is a very interesting idea!

That's what I'm talking about. You got it!

It's cheaper to buy a film recorder than a 12x18 enlarger to reduce the negative. Then you can make decent 11x14 contact printing negatives, or 4x5 negatives for enlarging.