Re: Inkjet negatives and Van Dyke Brownprints

Date: 11/20/04-12:09:19 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Hi Joe,

The Epson media setting for Watercolor Paper-Radiant White is an
unusual setting for a matte paper in that it lays down more ink than any
other matte paper setting. All media settings are , in a sense, another
type of profile. When I was testing media settings, this particular
setting was strange in that it produced some rather unsightly digital anomolies
in the denser values—which translates to the highlights in the final

A just wanted to confirm that your adjustment curve is used on the file
after it is converted from a positive to a negative image? Assuming so, I
looked at the curve you posted at the site below, and was curious as to
why the clipping on the darker values? I would have thought for Van Dyke you
would want the density and would want to retain more of the image file

Sounds like you are getting your exposure right on with the step tablet
lapped over the Pictorico...this is a Stouffer 21 step tablet? By Standard
Exposure Value, I just mean, as you said, the exposure that prints the
entire scale with seperation between each step and step #1 at or near
DMax for the process.

Be sure to let your negatives cure before printing so the densities

Sounds like Sandy's reply and info is helpful—he's used the PDN system a
lot. If you used a different paper or printer setup (and other variables
will make a difference), the curves will be slightly different.

Good luck,
Mark Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives
Mark I. Nelson Photography

In a message dated 11/19/04 11:19:12 AM, writes:

> >>> 11/19/04 12:57 AM >>>
> <<<...
> This could   be a difference in media settings.   It wasn't clear 
> which
> media setting you are using....>>>
> The setting is for "Watercolor-Radiant White."
> <<<On the other end   of   the Curve Output Values, you show a really
> strong
> increase in density in the (225,133) point   on your curve, which may
> indicate
> that your Standard Exposure Value for VDB is too high as this would
> indicate
> trying to compensate for blocked up shadows.   It would also   lead to
> Posterization in the shadows, since the curve is   so steep around that
> point.   Also,
> when I entered your values, I got   a "dip" in the   line   of the 
> curve,
> between this point and the   next point,   which would   also   cause an
> odd
> "banding" around those values in the image.>>>
> Mark, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Standard Exposure Value for
> VDB" but I'm assuming you are referring to the exposure required to
> print the entire VDB scale.  With my setup I'm printing so that the
> first step on the Stouffer wedge just begins to bronze.  At this
> exposure I'll end up with distinct printed steps from step 1 through
> about 17 with the remainder blocked.  The slight bronzing at step 1
> disappears after processing and drying.  Any further exposure results in
> the shadow areas blocking and a shift of the entire scale towards higher
> step values.  Therefore, I'm assuming I'm giving the minimum exposure to
> produce the maximum density my VDB mix is capable of without the loss of
> steps due to over- or underexposure and processing/bleaching/drydown.
> I'm also printing the Stouffer wedge through the Pictorico sheet.
> You are correct in that I'm getting banding hence what I'm calling a
> "digital" look.
> I'm assuming I could correct the curve to be less severe, but I'd have
> to severly reduce the print exposure in order to avoid the shadows
> blocking.  I suspect that doing so would result in a print lacking the
> maximum possible print density and having blocked highlights.  That's
> kind of where I started.
> The negative using Nored's curve just spat out of the 2200 so I'll go
> expose a print and compare the results.
> Thanks for the comments and any further suggestions.
> Joe
Received on Sat Nov 20 00:09:40 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:33 AM Z CST