Re: What about 1200x1200dpi laser printers for digital negatives?

From: Kate Mahoney ^lt;>
Date: 02/10/04-02:46:28 PM Z
Message-id: <004f01c3f016$f54a9b80$2126f6d2@yourif5zypd2xn>

O.K, no problems. I had great difficulty with hi-res silver prints when I
tried inkjet on transparency structure was really apparent in
silver. I also tried re-photographing inkjet prints onto conventional film -
enlargements showed the dot structure quite plaintly, and I found this very
ugly. However, I've messed about with some of the Photoshop filters - add
noise, add grain, and they can obscure the dot structure quite a lot. I feel
that for hi-res work in silver based emulsions, conventional negs are still
the best for me, as I can't afford a top quality printer as yet.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: What about 1200x1200dpi laser printers for digital negatives?

> I pretty sure it would work for pictorial prints (just like at the time
> of British and French Calotypists) & gum process but what if I want to
> print high definition Vandyke (which sometimes, in some tones, unveils
> the slight banding from my inkjet printer with Pictorico negatives -
> even with prints on NOT paper) and/or Kallitype prints?
> Anyway, I would be glad if you inform us/me with your progress on the
> subject...
> Regards,
> Loris.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kate Mahoney []
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:23 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: What about 1200x1200dpi laser printers for
> > digital negatives?
> >
> >
> > Loris, have you tried oiled paper? I have similar problems
> > with price of media/inks and have started using a
> > high-quality but light inkjet paper plus mineral oil. The
> > trick is to get a paper that doesn't block u.v.too much (some
> > papers contain fillers that do this). I'll let you know how I
> > get on if you like. At the moment I'm using Ilford Printasia
> > 120/gsm Superior Inkjet Paper but haven't done enough work to
> > have reliable results yet. And- wouldn't you know it, the
> > sun's not shining again :(
> >
> > Kate
Received on Tue Feb 10 14:47:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:08 AM Z CST