Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Steve, for the info -- even if it is rather discouraging. If 
I try making some digital negatives I'll be use Pictorico's Photo 
Gallery High Gloss white film.  Burkholder has made his 2200 silver 
for this film. Is this the one you had in mind? See ---
http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/inkjetneg.htm

Chris Hargens
 

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris 
Hargens" 
> <chargens@s...> wrote:
> > Thanks, Randy and Charles, for your advice. If I go the digital 
> > negative route, I'll be using my 2200 to make them. According to 
> > Burkholder the 2200, along with the 7600/9600, "gives the best 
> negs 
> > on the desktop yet." 
> 
> I just recently tried the same image on both my 7600 and my 1280, 
> and I must respectfully disagree with Dan-He's doing platinum, so 
> he's relying on the limited resolution of the hand-coated paper to 
> hide the printer artifacts. There's something about the dither 
> pattern  on the 7600/2200 that makes it look like it has much 
bigger 
> dots than it does. The 1280 neg was far smoother and closer to 
> dotless. Which is not to say that either one will yield a neg 
that's 
> smooth enough for silver paper, I've yet to prove that to myself.
> 
> The material I'm printing on is the Pictorico OHC film, which takes 
> the Ultrachromes much better than I expected. However, it tends to 
> show dots, dither patterns, and other printer artifacts (like micro-
> banding) much more than a normal print would. I understand that 
> Pictorico's synthetic high gloss material does better, but it is 
> also quite expensive, and I haven't yet yet tried it.
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis