Printing digital negatives on Epson 2200

[Bosaiya]

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.

[sanking]

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

[L Gebhardt]

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...

[Bosaiya]

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

[Bosaiya]

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.

[L Gebhardt]

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

I think that is it.

[smieglitz]

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.

[Bosaiya]

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.

[Bosaiya]

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.

[smieglitz]

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