Digital BW, The Print

--- 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