Thanks for all the replys. I believe I am going to try Kallitype prints at this point. Looking at Sandy's article on unblinkingeye together with Wynn White's VanDyke article, it looks like I'd probably be happy either way, though. I think I'll hold off on expensive toners until I get things dialed in a bit. I'll post my results when I get some (reasonable) prints.
Well, I lied...I ended up starting with VanDyke since it is a printing out process and I figured it would help me tune my digital negative. The attached print (the print is a lot more subtle and smooth than the scan) is about my third attempt and it is a decent print, but I hope to do better.....although I was amazingly excited when I saw the print in the fix.
I do have a couple of questions/comments.
When I made my negatives, I found that the curves published on the web gave a very low contrast print...seriously muddy. For this one, I simply inverted and used it. It is now a bit contrasty (I exposed for the highlights). I used BFK Rives paper and double coated. Is the contrast dependant on paper used?
The other question is about the whitened areas beyond the image area. Any idea what that is and how I can prevent it?
Whose curve did you download from the web? If you expect to use someone else's curve with success a number of conditions must be met. You should have the same printer, with the same print setting, and the way you work your process should be almost identical to those of the person who supplied the curve. For example, my kallitype curve would be of absolutely no use to you unless you also make your negatives with an Epson 2200, use the same contrast controls I use with kallitype, and use the same paper.
Some of the generic curves may work reasonably well but for best results you need to tailor the curve to your printer and process.
Sandy
Originally Posted by Mark Fisher
Well, I lied...I ended up starting with VanDyke since it is a printing out process and I figured it would help me tune my digital negative. The attached print (the print is a lot more subtle and smooth than the scan) is about my third attempt and it is a decent print, but I hope to do better.....although I was amazingly excited when I saw the print in the fix.
I do have a couple of questions/comments.
When I made my negatives, I found that the curves published on the web gave a very low contrast print...seriously muddy. For this one, I simply inverted and used it. It is now a bit contrasty (I exposed for the highlights). I used BFK Rives paper and double coated. Is the contrast dependant on paper used?
The other question is about the whitened areas beyond the image area. Any idea what that is and how I can prevent it?
Thanks Sandy, that is pretty much what I figured. I hoped I could be more lazy about it I was not very clear, but on my second attempt at a negative, I simply took a good image on my screen, inverted and printed. It was mostly good except shadow areas. I am confident that I can develop a decent curve to do what I want. I'm looking forward to going the the APUG conference so I can see what "real" alternative process prints look like.
Originally Posted by Mark Fisher
Adv Reply
I was not very clear, but on my second attempt at a negative, I simply took a good image on my screen, inverted and printed. It was mostly good except shadow areas. I am confident that I can develop a decent curve to do what I want. I'm looking forward to going the the APUG conference so I can see what "real" alternative process prints look like.
