Curves Calculator by Mark Nelson

[Gustavo_Castilla]

Have you used or seen this curves calculator?
I scaned a neg that I want to print on gum and I was having trublue with densty , some one recomended Mark Nelson's Curve Calculator
Need info on it
Thanks

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure why they made such a vague suggestion. Mark Nelson's curve calculator is part of his PDN system for digital negatives so if you aren't using the entire system then it's not very helpful.

www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com

[Gustavo_Castilla]

I'm not sure why they made such a vague suggestion. Mark Nelson's curve calculator is part of his PDN system for digital negatives so if you aren't using the entire system then it's not very helpful.

www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com

Un like a book at the store he's is a pdf (on line ) so I have little to go on
are you using his system I read the article on camera arts and that is what i know about it It sounds good but for $75.00 I want to make sure Is something I can use , is not like I can ebay it
Thanks

[Gustavo_Castilla]

I'm not sure why they made such a vague suggestion. Mark Nelson's curve calculator is part of his PDN system for digital negatives so if you aren't using the entire system then it's not very helpful.

www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com

Un like a book at the store he's is a pdf (on line ) so I have little to go on
are you using his system I read the article on camera arts and that is what i know about it It sounds good but for $75.00 I want to make sure Is something I can use , is not like I can ebay it
Thanks

[davidharris]

Gustavo

I have used the PDN system for POP and briefly for cyanotype and gum. It works very well, a vast improvement on other digital curve methods. However your "trouble with density" with gum may be a gum issue rather than a digital curve issue?

David

[borges62]

Gustavo

I have used the PDN system for POP and briefly for cyanotype and gum. It works very well, a vast improvement on other digital curve methods. However your "trouble with density" with gum may be a gum issue rather than a digital curve issue?

David

David,

What kind of results did you get with POP ? Is the negative "grain" clearly visible ? The tests I've made with digital N.(Pictorico) and POP were not smooth enough for my standards.


Thanks

Manuel Gomes Teixeira
Punctum Studios
Portugal

[Jeremy]

David,

What kind of results did you get with POP ? Is the negative "grain" clearly visible ? The tests I've made with digital N.(Pictorico) and POP were not smooth enough for my standards.


Thanks

Manuel Gomes Teixeira
Punctum Studios
Portugal

Manuel, what printer were you using? This does make a difference as different ink sets introduce a different amount of grain into the process. The Epson 1270/1280 seems to have the least grain, then the Epson 2200, and the C6X/8X series of printers have the most. This is from my personal experience using these printers to make negatives for palladium printing.

[Gustavo_Castilla]

Hi I have a CX 5400 and an 800 ani tips using them ?

[smieglitz]

...The tests I've made with digital N.(Pictorico) and POP were not smooth enough for my standards...
Manuel Gomes Teixeira

Ahhh. That is a very key statement.

I've done the digital negative route for printing in gum bichromate for several years with several different inkjet printers (Epson 600, 1160, 2000P, C80 and now 2200) and have always experienced good results in that process. The density was always fine for gum (only) and the texture of the rougher papers coupled with the slight misregistrations inherent in gum printing multiple layers always masked the "grain" of those negatives sufficiently to appear OK to me.

Only recently with the Epson 2200 have I felt the digital negatives on Pictorico OHP produce acceptable density and results with van dyke brown and cyanotype processes. With that specific printer the densities are sufficient and the resultant prints have acceptable quality on certain smoother papers than I use for gum.

I suspect the diginegs may or may not have acceptable quality for me on very smooth POP. It may look OK to others. Since others report pleasing results on AZO and with standard silverprints, perhaps the technology has broken the threshold of quality for smooth factory papers. I'm not sure I'll ever find that out though since I've pretty much resolved that the only process I'll use the diginegs for in the future with personal work is gum bichromate. I've finally figured out I'm more of a "process guy" than a "final print guy" and so the digineg route does not appeal to me where an ULF negative will bring good results (e.g., VDB, cyanotype, etc.). However, since the printing stage of multiple layer gum prints is so appealing, and the generation of enlarged 4-color separation negatives via the darkroom such drudgery, I'll continue to use the diginegs for gum. That is unless I get that rare 5x7 3-color camera on eBay before Sandy does.

Perhaps if the thread originator could post specific infomation about the type of density problem they are experiencing (print vs. negative, high vs. low density, etc.) some suggestions could be made to alleviate the problem.

Joe

[davidharris]

I have been more than happy with the grain/tonal smoothness using Pictorico (Epson 2100) and POP, but then I'm more interested in the image than ultimate quality. Others might perceive problems where I do not.

David