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

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/10/04-04:05:45 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Kate Mahoney wrote:

> 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.

Kate, The problem may be the laser printer with its defined dot. Have you
tried stochastic dot of inkjet? I made waxed paper negatives on Epson
1160 (list price $299, bought for $199) that did NOT show dot in
cyanotype, vandyke, or gum... and on paper NO BANDING. (Sometimes banding
on pictorico.) I didn't try it for silver gelatin, but I have an enlarger
for that.

Tho didn't you mention something about oiling being slow? I didn't find
that... just spread canola oil with finger or three, let sit a few moments
& wipe with paper towel to remove excess. But what I did find was that
within a day oiled paper starts to dry out and the curve changes. I never
did experience the advertised rancid odor... but if you want to print
consistently, re-oil if using neg after a few days....

Received on Tue Feb 10 16:06:42 2004

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