Well, I have received the Precision Digital Negatives CD and printed it and is now coil binded.
I have to say that reading the book has brought me a lot of excitement. I feel very confident that I will be able to make the best prints ever once I have the system up and running.
The book is impressive. There is lots of information in it both in words and in diagrams and charts.
At this point I find myself going through the information on suitable inkjet printers to make digital negatives for AZO first, and Palladium next.

There is basically two choices on Inks. One is Dyes, the other one is pigments. According to what I have read in Mark's book, a negative printed with pigment is less opaque to UV light and therefore a much less dramatic curve needs to be applied in order to linearize the tones on the final print.
I have heard also issues of graininess with the use of pigments.
I think that most of the people making digital negatives are using either the dye based epson 1280/1290 and the pigment based epson 2200.
There is a new Epson R800 that will only print up to letter sized documents. This printer is pigment based but with an astonishing 1.5 picoliter droplet and with 7 inks with the eighth one being a resin overcoat. This seems to me like a good choice to get started with the PDNegatives, especially for the ones intended for AZO.

I will appreciate anyone's input on what inkjet to get to produce the smoothest negatives posssible.

Christian

I think that most of the people making digital negatives are using either the dye based epson 1280/1290 and the pigment based epson 2200.
There is a new Epson R800 that will only print up to letter sized documents. This printer is pigment based but with an astonishing 1.5 picoliter droplet and with 7 inks with the eighth one being a resin overcoat. This seems to me like a good choice to get started with the PDNegatives, especially for the ones intended for AZO.

I will appreciate anyone's input on what inkjet to get to produce the smoothest negatives posssible.

Christian

Christian,

Mark Nelson stated somewhere, I think on the alt-photo-process list, that he believes the 2200 is the best printer for making digital negatives, and I think he has worked with both the 2200 and 1280. However, I am fairly certain that he was only thinking about the wide format printers in making that statement. I would be inclined to think that the R800 would produce slightly better digital negatives, though you will be limited to a smaller negative than with the 2200 and 1800.

Sandy

Christian,

Mark Nelson stated somewhere, I think on the alt-photo-process list, that he believes the 2200 is the best printer for making digital negatives, and I think he has worked with both the 2200 and 1280. However, I am fairly certain that he was only thinking about the wide format printers in making that statement. I would be inclined to think that the R800 would produce slightly better digital negatives, though you will be limited to a smaller negative than with the 2200 and 1800.

Sandy
Hi,

As I am a new member of the forum, I am not sure if I am in the right thread.

Any info about the possibility to use Pictorico OHP or Agfa Copyjet film on HP Designjet 130 for making enlarged negatives will be deeply appreciated.

Best regards

Christian,

I've used both the 1280 and the 2200 for making inkjet negs on OHP destined for platinum printing. To my eyes the 2200 inkjet negs show a 'graining' on prints with even tones - most noticeable in areas like open sky. The 'graining' reminds me of enlargements from 35mm. The 1280 is smoother in those areas. OTOH prints made from 2200 inkjet negs do appear to be slightly sharper and have a wider tonal range. With the normal viewing distance of an 8x10 (or smaller) the 'graining' may bug you - with big prints at greater viewing distances it may not.

Cheers,
Roger...

Thanks Sandy and Rogein, it seems I have a decision to make.

Mark has also reponded me through my email. He said that he had a conversation with Dick Arentz, and that he said that using his system, his prints had no grain and very smooth tones, even when examined with a loupe.

I still think that on Azo some of it is going to show. It is a matter of being able to live with it or not.

So if I decide to go with the epson 2200 which seems to be at a great price right now at amazon.com, do you think I will need a vaccum frame to contact print. If that is the case, are they expensive?

Christian,

I should clarify - the comments I made was from using either the Burkholder or Schreiber methods. The 'graining' was obvious in a platinum print - I would imagine on azo it would be much more prominent. I'm eagerly waiting for my copy of Mark's book to arrive so I can give it a try. FWIW both the 1280 and the 2200 are excellent printers. Good luck!

Thanks Sandy and Rogein, it seems I have a decision to make.

Mark has also reponded me through my email. He said that he had a conversation with Dick Arentz, and that he said that using his system, his prints had no grain and very smooth tones, even when examined with a loupe.

I still think that on Azo some of it is going to show. It is a matter of being able to live with it or not.

So if I decide to go with the epson 2200 which seems to be at a great price right now at amazon.com, do you think I will need a vaccum frame to contact print. If that is the case, are they expensive?
Christian,

I spoke to a friend of mine in South Carolina yesterday on the phone and they mentioned that they have seen Sam Wang's silver gelatin prints printed from PDN negatives. Apparently they were extraordinary, showing smooth creamy skin tones. Additionally I've seen AZO prints made with PDN negatives and there is no graining. All of the negatives were printed on an Epson 2200.

The palladium/platinum prints and carbon prints that I've seen made with PDN negatives showed no grain or artifacts what so ever.

I printed a copy of Mark's book on my C80 this past weekend in high res mode on high quality bond paper and had it spiral bound yesterday at Kinkos which makes reading the book much easier. I hope to begin my calibration process after the first of October and I think that I will do my initial calibration using silver gelatin paper. That should make the process quicker and less expensive than working with palladium as I'm sure I'll make mistakes with the first rounds of testing.

As for the vacuum easel they can be had pretty inexpensively. I purchased a NuArc 20x24 sized one about 3 years ago for $50. Actually I wish I had one in the 11x14 size, which would be very convienient.

Good luck,

Don Bryant

Christian,

I spoke to a friend of mine in South Carolina yesterday on the phone and they mentioned that they have seen Sam Wang's silver gelatin prints printed from PDN negatives. Apparently they were extraordinary, showing smooth creamy skin tones. Additionally I've seen AZO prints made with PDN negatives and there is no graining. All of the negatives were printed on an Epson 2200.


Don Bryant

I have seen Sam Wang's prints made from PDN negatives on the Epson 2200 and they do not have a lot of grain. They have some, about what we might expect to see if we were to enlarge a 4X5 Tri-X 320 negative to 16X20 or 20X24. You can see it on very close inspection but it is hardly distracting even when viewed at closer than normal distance.

And what I see in Sam's prints matches fairly closely in terms of grain appearance my own work with the PDN negatives from the 2200 on AZO. But if you look at the paper through a loupe of 8-12X you may see some indication of printer artifacts.

As for kallitypes and palladium on fairly smooth papers such as Cot-320 and even on vellum there is no visible grain or any kind or printer artifacts in the prints I have made from 2200 digital negatives, not even when viewed with a loupe.

Sandy

Thanks everyone, it all sounds very encouraging. Right now is the time to jump in the pool. There goes my sore credit card again.

I made my mind, I want bigger negatives so I will purchase the 2200.

Has anyone tried the comparison of say scanning an 8x10 negative and comparing say a Pt/Pd print or Azo or Carbon contact print to a print made via the digital negative?

Has anyone tried the comparison of say scanning an 8x10 negative and comparing say a Pt/Pd print or Azo or Carbon contact print to a print made via the digital negative?

Not 8X10, but I have made the comparison between original negatives and digital negatives in 5X7", 7X17" and 12X20" with all three processes.

Assuming perfectly exposed originals here is what I have found.


With AZO the original negative gives a better print when compared to a print made from a digital negative of the same size.

With carbon I still give a slight edge to the original negative when comparing prints of the same size, but slightly less of a difference than with AZO. But this advantage only goes for prints on smooth surfaces. On rough textured papers the image quality of prints made from original in-camera negative and from enlarged digital negatives, up to about 2X, is about the same.

With Pt./Pd. I can not tell any difference between a print made from the original negative and a digital negative, either with same size prints or with enlarged digital negatives of no more than about 2.5X.

To put this another way, in my opinion a 5X7", 7X17" or 12X20" AZO or carbon print from an original in-camera negative is superior to a print of the same size made from a digital negative.

With kallitype and Pt./Pd. there is little or no difference in image quality between a 12X20" print made with a digital negative from a 5X7" original and a print made from an original in-camera 12X20" negative, assuming digital negatives of no more than about 2X size of the original.

This is my opinion, and it is based on actually having made and examined quite a number of prints made with all of these processes using both in-camera and digital negatives. I have no interest in promoting either type of negative, just stating facts as I see them.

Sandy King

With kallitype and Pt./Pd. there is little or no difference in image quality between a 12X20" print made with a digital negative from a 5X7" original and a print made from an original in-camera 12X20" negative, assuming digital negatives of no more than about 2X size of the original.


Sandy King

I want to clairfy the above statement. All other things being equal (which is rare) print quality is determined by the amount of information, or detail, in the negative. Assuming the most optimum conditions of exposure an original 12X20" in-camera negatives will have a lot more information than a 5X7" negative. However, in typical landscape photography we rarely expose our negatives at an aperture that gives the highest resolution because depth of field considerations dictate otherwise.

In working with the 5X7" camera I rarely ever use a taking aperture of more than f/22. Assuming diffraction limiting resolution at about 1400/f-stop for white light the use of an aperture of f/32 results in a maximum possible resolution of about 63 lppm. Assuming magnification of about 2.5X to make a 12X20" print from this negative you get a maximum of about 25 lppm on the print. This is about 5 lppm beyond the limits of sight discrimination for most people at the optimum viewing distance of about 250 cm.

In the case of the 12X20 camera you need to close down the lens to at least f/64 in order to get an equivalent amount of depth of field to what you get with the 5X7 camera at f/22. This assumes of course that you enlarge the 5X7" negative 2.5X and make a contact print of the 12X20" negative. At f/64 the diffraction limiting resolution is 22 lppm. Many people expose most of their 12X20" negatives at f/90, which has a diffractin limiting resolution of 16 lppm.

There are many situations where it is possible to make exposures with both the 5X7" and the 12X20" camera at optimum aperture to produce maximum resolution. In these circumstances the 12X20" negatives is obviously going to have a lot more information, and if you print with a smooth silver gelatin paper this difference will be seen on the print. But it will probably not be seen on a kallitype or Pt./Pd. print, however, since the texture and paper fibers used with these processes limit resolution to 20 lppm or less.

Sandy