Digital BW, The Print

Phil,

Can't argue the quality of drum scanners but out of my price range at 
the moment. I have tried having them done for me but I decided to 
trade the drop in resolution and dynamic range for the hands on 
control.

Just as I traded some silver print sharpness for the advantages of a 
diffusion enlarger. For super sharp there is point source too but I 
have only read about them.

As far as the work flow goes, I wasn't thinking that the contact neg 
had to be from any particular digital printer. In theory I would 
think that a laser printer such as the Lightjet would have an edge in 
sharpness. From A&I's site I gather there is a size limitation. I 
wonder if you supplied them with 11X14, 16X20 or large sheet film 
(special order from Kodak or other)if the printer could handle it? (I 
sent them an invitation to join the list their input would be great.)
Obvious the cost would be going very high at this point but it might 
be the ultimate silver print method in terms of sharpness.

Do you think printing a negative image on the Duratrans material 
would be feasible?

I have several heard conflicting reports over the use of the inkjet 
on the Pictorico material for contact negs. Can you tell me what your 
workflow and ink set was for your attempt at this?

Thanks,
Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Not having an extremely large amount of experience with the mid-
price 
> scanners, I can't comment on their output quality.  But at the 
uppper 
> end of drum scanners, very little is lost in this part of the 
process.  
> There is a very high level of acutance, and the tonal range is 
> excellent.  Got to pay, though, unless you own a Howtek 8000 or 
> equivalent.  The few piezo's I've made from these kind of scans 
beat 
> silver prints at the same degree of enlargment, even using the best 
> darkroom equipment I can get my hands on.  Granted, I have a 
diffusion 
> enlarger, which softens detail a little, but the trade-offs with 
> condensers and the burned out highlights/Callier effect are 
> unacceptable for me, so they are not a consideration.  Would be 
> interesting to have a comparison with the condenser head print, 
though.
> 
> Insofar as the 2 workflows you've described (if I understand you 
> correctly): 1. Contact prints from negs from an inkjet printer vs  
2. 
> digital enlarger neg to silver via an enlarger- if the scan is 
tight 
> and can produce good film from the inkjet (Dan Burkholder does a 
lot of 
> this), it will work well and is cheaper.  But you're limited by the 
> printer's size.  With a digital neg you depend more on the quality 
> thereof, and your enlarging rig, and the determining factor in how 
> large you can go is more related to these.
> 
> A friend of mine (who is a hand letterpress printer) and I recently 
> tested printing out negatives for him from my 1160 onto Pictorico's 
> display transparency film.  It didn't hold an adequate level of 
black 
> for us, and wasn't nearly as sharp for type as the film he gets 
from 
> digital enlargers.  And this was for contact printing to his 
polymer 
> stage.  I suppose I'll get a chance to try this comparison directly 
on 
> my own continuous tone images when I get my next batch of LJ negs, 
and 
> will let everyone know.
> 
> Phil
> http://philbard.com
> 
(snip previous)