Being somewhat frustrated by my lack of more precise control in the
traditional darkroom now that I have been exposed to Photoshop, I have
experimented with Mark Nelson's Precision Digital Negative system to make
black and white digital injet negatives and then contact print them on
silver paper.

I have used my Epson R800 printer and Pictorico White film for the negative.
I have used Ilford Multigrade IV fiber glossy paper and traditional
processing with selenium toning. I feel that I have been completely
sucessful and have been able to avoid the microbanding that others have
complained about.

Here are more details:

The precision Digital Negative process uses these steps.

-Determine a standard silver printing time with a 21 step wedge
-determine a color density to use for printing the negative
-use this to fit the range of tones to the paper and process
-print a negative with a full range of tones using the above steps and make
a contact print
-measure those contact printed tones with a densitometer or scanner.
-manufacture a correction Photoshop curve to linearize those tones.

What this gives you is a repeatable process that takes advantage of the full
range of your paper and makes it possible to transfer what you see on the
screen directly to your darkroom paper. No more manual dodging, burning,
flashing, contrast filter manipulation, exposure determination,unsharp masking, waiting for drydown etc.

The Precision Digital Negative system gives you all the instructions and the
software to do all the steps very precisely so that all of this is
repeatable once you calibrate your working environment.

I noticed two main things as I worked my way through this prcess.
First, the system has you pick a color density of ink to use for making the
negative because I believe most people who use this system are interested in platinum work where UV light is used and therefore using the different color inks can make a difference here. I found that for silver work, choosing just a color of ink did not supply enough density to fit a full range of tones on variable contrast paper without cranking the contrast filter of my enlarger
(used as a fancy contact printing light source) way up to level five and
this did not look good at all. So I fell back on using the printer's full
bore ink rendition of producing a black and white negative with all the
color inks. Now it was possible to make a negative that worked with varible
contrast paper set at the filter #1 level and the results looked great.

Secondly, I found that indeed I did get very faint microbanding when I
printed the inkjet negative at the "best photo" setting of the R800 which
corresponds to a dpi setting of 2880. It was very faint and only visible in
the creamy highlights of skin tones. My friends didn't see it until I
pointed it out and then they could. I was not satisfied with this and felt
maybe this process couldn't be done well with silver paper. BUT, I tried
again with the "RPM" setting on the Epson driver which corresponds to a dpi
setting of 5760. Well, after recalibrating the process to this new dpi
setting, the results were fabulous. Recalibrating the system was absolutely
necessary in that it was clear that the ink was laid down with very
different density at this higher setting. This step solved, in my system,
the microbanding issue that some have spoken of in forums. I believe now
that this print is indistinguishable from my enlarger made print except that
the control of the tones is so much better than I am amazed.

This was an 8x10 negative and print. My original plan was to upgrade to the
R1800 printer so that I could make 11x14 negatives and prints. With the new
Epson R2400 coming out, I will hold off to see what that printer will be
like. However, both printers offer the "RPM" or 5760 dpi setting that
appears to be crucial to getting rid of the light microbanding on exceptionally unforgiving silver gelatin paper. My suspicion is that this might not work with the 2200 printer. For platinum work on art papers, this system will have no problems and if I did those processes, I would be all over this system in a heart beat!

So there you have it. After a month of experimenting, I feel that this sytem
will truly work with the current newest Epson printers and may be an ideal
hybridization between the control of Photoshop and the wonderful dmax and
luster/feel of silver gelatin papers.

Please feel free to comment.

Thats very interesting, I have been using the 2100 and am vaguely thinking about an upgrade to the R2400. Does the 5760 on the R800 setting give more density than the 2880 setting?

yes, it appears to, but I haven't measured it. The negative appears more contrasty and the highlights blocked up in my first print until I realized that I needed to build a new adjustment curve for this change in dpi setting. Then everything looked great. Clearly the Epson driver lays down the ink in a different manner at this new setting. One might not see that in a print, but since we are talking about transmission here since we have made a negative, this makes a difference.

Thanks Peanut for taking the trouble to write up such an informative post.

Thanks Peanut for taking the trouble to write up such an informative post.

Yes, thanks indeed. That was a nice report that provides a lot of useful infoirmation for printing digital negatives with the R800.

Sandy

nd the results looked great.

My original plan was to upgrade to the
R1800 printer so that I could make 11x14 negatives and prints. With the new
Epson R2400 coming out, I will hold off to see what that printer will be
like. However, both printers offer the "RPM" or 5760 dpi setting that
appears to be crucial to getting rid of the light microbanding on exceptionally unforgiving silver gelatin paper. My suspicion is that this might not work with the 2200 printer. For platinum work on art papers, this system will have no problems and if I did those processes, I would be all over this system in a heart beat!



Again, I want to thank you for your initial report.

I had a chance to do some experiments myself today with the R800 and R1800. Although both of these printers use the Ultrachrome ink system, same as used in the Epson 2200, the results are not at all alike in terms of transmission density for AZO and UV processes.

In short, maximum effective printing density in Blue and UV mode is much less with the R1800 than with the 2200, both with the colors of the PDN palette and with the black inks. But, it may be enough with the colors for UV sensitive processes, though it is hard to tell because for some reason that I don't fully understand my densitometer in UV channel does not provide a good indicator of effective printing density as it does with the 2200. However, there is more than enough printing density for UV processes if you just print the RGB file in Color without a hue layer. This gives a negative with a mximum printing density range of about 2.4, which you can either adjust with the curve, or reduce by decreasing saturation with printer controls. This does not allow one to use the color control features of PDN, but considering the gain in smoothness with the R1800, the trade off may be well worth it if you are plan to print your digital negatives on smooth silver papers.

In any event the grain problem of the Epson 2200 has apparently been eliminated. The first tests that I am looking at with this printer on AZO 2 are virtually grain free and without the gritty look of the 2200.

But don't bet the house on this printer for digital negaives just yet. For various reasons it is not nearly as versatile as the 2200. Which might be a good reason to wait and see what the 2400 offers.


Sandy King

One additional comment about the Epson 1800. The pigmented ink set of this printer dries quite a bit slower than the ink set of the Epson 2200. This makes the possibility of pizza wheel tracks much more likely. I have never gotten any pizza wheel tracks with the 2200, not even with the wheels down and in place. However, in testing the R1800 I got the evil tracks with both Pictorico as well as the PhotoWarehouse OHP material. I assume there will be some way to remove or lift the pizza wheels on the R1800 but I could not figure out how to do it. Given how slow the ink dries with the R1800 I would not consider buying this printer unless I knew for a fact that it is possible to lift/remove the pizza wheels because with them in place the chances of tracks are great on OHP media.


Sandy

Thanks for your test of the R800.
I think we might have to admit this this printer may serve our digtal negative's better. In a direct showdown the R800 prints with twice the dpi's
and the 2200 has a 4 picoliter droplet size. the R800 prints dot 5760x1440 dpi enhanced resolution
- 1.5 picoliter droplet size this should make a smoother print.

These tests are on older printers but I think the point is made.
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/13_comp/17.html

Thanks for your test of the R800.
I think we might have to admit this this printer may serve our digtal negative's better. In a direct showdown the R800 prints with twice the dpi's
and the 2200 has a 4 picoliter droplet size. the R800 prints dot 5760x1440 dpi enhanced resolution
- 1.5 picoliter droplet size this should make a smoother print.

These tests are on older printers but I think the point is made.
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/13_comp/17.html


However, I would not recommend the R800 or R1800 for UV sensitive processes (including AZO), especially if you plan to use Mark Nelson's PDN system. The problem is that you can not get enough UV transmitted density from the various color combinations. There is enough density if you print the RGB file in B&W, but in that case there is a tendency for ink puddling.

Sandy

Thanks for your test of the R800.
I think we might have to admit this this printer may serve our digtal negative's better. In a direct showdown the R800 prints with twice the dpi's
and the 2200 has a 4 picoliter droplet size. the R800 prints dot 5760x1440 dpi enhanced resolution
- 1.5 picoliter droplet size this should make a smoother print.

These tests are on older printers but I think the point is made.
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/13_comp/17.html


However, I would not recommend the R800 or R1800 for UV sensitive processes (including AZO), especially if you plan to use Mark Nelson's PDN system. The problem is that you can not get enough UV transmitted density from the various color combinations. There is enough density if you print the RGB file in B&W, but in that case there is a tendency for ink puddling.

Sandy