I am attaching a image of a palladium print made from a digital negative. The original negative was 5X7” in size. It was scanned at 2400 dpi with an Epson 4870 and after adjustments in Photoshop rescaled to 360 dpi at the final print size of 10X16”. The digital negative was made with an Epson 2200 on Pictorico OHP. The method was made from beta testing of procedures described in a new book (soon to be released) by Mark Nelson called Precision Digital Negatives.
The beauty of Mark’s system is that it works for every output device and is capable of creating a perfect curve for virtually any process. The print in question was made by simply following the calibration recommendations in Mark’s book. I printed the negative and exposed and developed it according to what was indicated by the test calibration. As you can see, the rendition of tonal values and exposure is virtually perfect, pretty remarkable since no test prints at all were made before making the large print.
This system allows the capture of every tone in a negative, from highest highlight to deepest shadows, and the negatives from the Epson 2200 are extremely smooth and for all practical purposes the equivalent of negatives made with large format cameras.
This system allows the capture of every tone in a negative, from highest highlight to deepest shadows, and the negatives from the Epson 2200 are extremely smooth and for all practical purposes the equivalent of negatives made with large format cameras.
Sandy King
Sandy, I am amazed by this. In the past I havve tried to make digital negatives with OHP and the Epson 2200. The results were horrible. The results were much better on the white film, but this will not work for UV based proeccess.
Would you be willing to send me a sample file and the print settings you used so I can see how this works comparred to Dan Burkholder's methods?
I'm assuming you've done Dan Burkholder's method as well, right? Could you sum up the differences in the two methods, with regard to the actual mechanics of process?
Sandy, I am amazed by this. In the past I havve tried to make digital negatives with OHP and the Epson 2200. The results were horrible. The results were much better on the white film, but this will not work for UV based proeccess.
Would you be willing to send me a sample file and the print settings you used so I can see how this works comparred to Dan Burkholder's methods?
Thanks,
Larry
Larry,
I know quite a number of folks who are using the 2200 with OHP with good results for digital negatives. But Mark's system is quite unique.
Unfortunately I can not send you any sample files or settings at this time of this procedure. Mark sent the book to a few folks for beta testing the procedure, including in addition to myself Sam Wang, Phil Davis and Dick Arentz and one or two others, but asked us not to disclose anything at this time since the results are still in the experimental stage and as you can understand he does not want to be responsible for the mistakes of others.
However, I know someone else who makes beautiful selenium toned kallitypes with the Epson 2200 and I could send you his curve. Or perhaps better contact me off the forum and I will send you his email and you can contact him directly. This should work perfectly for palladium as well since kallitype and palladium are sister processes and require negatives of identical density range. I have not used his curve but have seen the prints and they are quite wonderful.
But no question, the Epson 2200, with the right settings and materials, is one great machine for making digital negatives. I had previously used the Epson 2000P for making digital negatives and they too were really quite good, but the 2200 gives results that are better.
I'm assuming you've done Dan Burkholder's method as well, right? Could you sum up the differences in the two methods, with regard to the actual mechanics of process?
-KwM-
Basically Dan Burkholder provides a curve for a given printer and process. With Nelson's system you develop the curve and calibrate it to your specific output device.
Mark's system is more precise and can be calibrated to any output device.
The basic issue is that the ink sets of all printers very rather dramatically in terms of actinic filtration of UV light. Mark's system recognizes that the cookie cutter curve approach, while it works fine in some situations, can not provide optimum results. His books provides detailed instructions for obtaining the results.
Dan Burkholder's book, on the other hand, is very useful in describing the basic overall procedures and for that reason should continue to be highly useful in my opinion. It provides general information, is well organized and if you are interested in making digital negatives can set you on the right path. But if you really want to know exactly how your fish should be cooked, Mark Nelson's approach is the thing.
So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson? Is the contact print that much better than the epson print to make it worth while? Interesting to know what you feel when viewing a side by side comparison..
So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson? Is the contact print that much better than the epson print to make it worth while? Interesting to know what you feel when viewing a side by side comparison..
The benefits would be several...but mostly what I see is that a true alt process could be printed whereas outputting directly to an Epson would entail the limited life of the dyes/inks used by that printer.
So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson? Is the contact print that much better than the epson print to make it worth while? Interesting to know what you feel when viewing a side by side comparison..
Taking the scan and printing a negative on the Epson "might" just reproduce the density curve of the orginal negative. (Don't know, never tried) Then you would be faced with the task of making the light sensitive coating on the print match the curve of the negative. If you go through the process of applying an adjustment curve to the scan, you are "guaranteed" that the curve will match a specific sensitizing formula perfectly.
In the first case you adjust the print to meet the negative. In the latter, you adjust the negative (via a calibration curve) to meet the print.
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by sanking
