Re: Ultrafine Clear Film and Epson 2200

Date: 10/19/04-09:15:49 PM Z
Message-id: <>

Hi Chris,

You are correct—the heart of my system uses color, not the curve, to match
the density range of the negative to the exposure scale of whatever process you
are using—and it does it very simply and extremely accurately. The system
does use a curve, but due to using the proper color, the curve is far less
drastic and destructive to the images tones. So negatives may end up green,
red/orange or even blue. There is no way to judge a negative by eyeballing it as
you can with silver negatives, where printing density pretty much matches visual
density. Also, different inksets (dye, pigment, hybrid) will give very
differnt results in terms of which colors produce similar density and which colors
produce the maximum density.

Inkjet negatives are a whole different ball game. They act as filters
rather than opaque blockers of light. There is even some evidence emerging that
certain processes have a very different response to the light spectrum even
though they are UV sensitive.

Regarding waiting for negatives to dry. On Pictorico OHP film usng the
Epson Ultrachrome inkset (and I am sure this is also true of other inks and
substrates), You can take UV readings of the negative with a UV densitometer after
it comes out of the printer and watch the UV density drop over a period of
time—up to a couple of hours or more. It's not just an issue of whether inks
will smear if you use the negative right away. It is extremely important that
negatives be "cured" after printing so that the UF densities of the inks
stabilize. Otherwise you are not going to get consistent results when printing.

I know I must sound like a broken record, or cd as the case may be, but if a
substrate does not function well with your ink, ie, print smoothly, sharply
and dry properly in normal use, then you are wasting time and money using it.
Substrates are designed work with certain inks and to take certain inkloads—or

Purchase the book @
Credit Card & Paypal now accepted

PS: I'm sitting here looking at two 5 x 7 Palladium prints made by Dick
Arentz—one contact printed from the original in-camera 5 x 7 negative and one
contact printed from a negative made with Pictorico OHP film on an Epson 2200
using the Precision Digital Negative system. I cannot tell the two prints apart—
identical tonal values/distribution, identical density ranges, identical
detail, and when viewed with a loupe—no digital artifacts or ink dots/grain.
Dick couldn't tell them apart either—in fact he said when he looked at them he
preferred the digital negative print. :) Sorry—I couldn't resist sharing

In a message dated 10/19/04 9:42:17 PM, writes:

> So, in my mind, if you need to do pt/pd prints with colored inks, Photo
> Warehouse is not suitable unless you remove the wheels.  If you can get by
> with black ink only, then it is fine.  With gum printing, it works just
> fine.  OH, I did not try the 2880 speed.  Marek, "waiting a couple hours for
> the neg to dry" is hardly something my workflow allows; I'm way too hasty.
> Interestingly, Marek's curve produces a bluish, flatter/thinner looking
> negative than black ink only, which is plenty dense.  In other words, my gum
> negs are **not** thin. But I'm sure what this boils down to is Mark Nelson's
> indication that different ink colors have different UV blocking capabilities
> and hence the "apparent" density of the neg doesn't tell the whole story,
> right Mark?  In other words, Marek's apparent thin/flat neg for pt/pd isn't
> so.
Received on Tue Oct 19 21:16:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/03/04-10:51:23 AM Z CST