Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> 
> Anyone out there still working on digital internegatives? A few 
> weeks back I got a few sheets of a film called Super Clear/IJ from 
> Michael Pach and Adveturecam Photo. I've tried it a couple times at 
> this point, and I'm pleased enough with it to ressurect that 
> particular project.

Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try. I'm looking for a good Pictorico alternative. Not because of the problems you mentioned, but because Pictorico is getting so flakey lately to deal with. The new owners are really turning a silk purse into a sow's ear.

It's not just that they've discontinued the large rolls of film (which is quite annoying as we make big negs on our 7600) but they just seem to e screwing up stuff lately.

But there are "workarounds" for a lot of your OHP problems, and some might even help on the new film...

> I had been trying Pictorico products, but 
> remained unsatisfied: I hate printing through the almost opaque 
> white plastic paper,

Yeah. That stuff is a pain. The best thing the white film does is gives you a bit of diffusion, if you're using a "point source" of light for your contact prints and cuts the light a bit (if you're doing a process where you need to cut the light a bit, like azo, or regular silver paper).

> and the OTC showed printer artifacts: the 
> printer dots where very clearly delineated,

That sounds like you need a slightly more diffused light source. Are you printing silver with an enlarger or alternative processes with a single UV lamp source like a plate burner? 

> it showed microbanding 
> when normal paper wouldn't

Are you printing in low speed "unidirectional" mode? Exagerated grain is often do to using high speed mode. The printer makes two passes, the dots aren't perfectly aligned on the forward and backward passes, ink dots that are supposed to be next to each other end up on top of each other, and this leaves gaps between them.

Microbanding and graininess are also reduced if you align the printer to the thicker emulsion. It differs substantially from the alignment needed for paper.

> and the film itself was milky, lowering 
> the effective contrast,

A common myth. The opacity rasies dmin and dmax equally. It's just like adding a neutral density filter.

> and has a lot of microscopic flaws.

Quite true. You get to see the flaws on both sides of the substrate, as well as the ones inside. Not as much of a problem with a diffusing medium like the white film.

> Also, 
> and probably most important, the Pictorico won't build much density 
> or color saturation. It seemed no matter how I went about it, I 
> could get enough density, spectral or otherwise to get good 
> contrast.

Are you using matte black or photo black? When I went to matte black on OHP with a 2200, I found I could get enough density for any paper grade. Surface of the negative is a bit fragile with MK, but if you treat it with the respect due any negative, the end result is a lot better.

> Not a problem if you're using variable contrast paper, but 
> I need the internegs for printing the hand coated emulsion, which is 
> a grade two at best.
> 
> OTOH the Super Clear is, as its name implies, much more clear, at 
> least in part because it is thinner,

Woudl you beleive almost all the pictorico cloudiness is the coating? If you injure the surface, you'll see...

> so carefull handling is a must. 
> On the plus side, it is capable of producing much better color 
> saturation, especially in the yellow range where the Pictorico was 
> very weak. That makes it easy to produce an orange negative of 
> enough spectral density to make a snappy print on VC fiber paper at 
> a grade 2-2.5

Ah, color negatives. I've never figured out where that came from.
 
> Also, it shows printer dots less, and doesn't seem prone to showing 
> microbanding either. I think this is because there is a bit more dot 
> gain, which softens the edges of the printer dots a bit.

Or simply that the alignment on your machine is better for something the thickness of the new material, instead of the Pictorico.

> Obviously 
> this also means slightly lower max sharpness is possible, but the 
> difference is not visible to the naked eye, and you have to look 
> carefully even with a lupe to pick it up. The lower grittiness is 
> definitely visible to the naked eye, and quite pleasing.
> 
> There is one catch: the material is available in 100 sheet boxes, 
> and while the price per sheet is much lower than Pictorico, that's 
> still a good chunk of change. Michael has agreed to split the 
> packages into 50s that's a lot easier to handle, and puts the cash 
> outlay close to what you'spend getting into Pictorico.
> 
> Hope this is of some use & interest

It is. Thanks.

Ciao!

Joe