Digital BW, The Print

Ken,

I belive there are several good image setter technicians out there in
NY, La, Chicago, and Salt Lake City. But like you say, they are a
dying breed and some of those references I got 6 months ago may have
moved on in their life, as many of great color dig neg makers have
done. Ours here in Atlanta simply "retired" and there was one one
interested in taking his place. As to darkrooms, mine is gone too. No
room.

But I do have a fantastic 8 tube 7' uv light that is as bright as
daylight that I want to use. I don't really have a problem with
Burkholders method of inkjet negs on trans film for platinum ( I don't
think). Like you say the paper absorption takes care of a lot of the
problems and if you get a good sized paper I think they can look
nice.I belive the problem is finding the OHP film in sizes larger than
13x19 that doesn't have pin holes. At least that is what Pictorico
told me when I discussed it with them. The roll film was flawed and
coated differently. I would like to do a few 20x30 platinum/pallads.
We'll see if it is possible without breaking the bank. I've only done
a few 13x19's so far. But you know no matter how nice and "rare" these
types of prints are, whenever I finish a session I always say, thank
God for pigment inkjet. I certainly wouldn't want to go through all
that every week. But its fun to have variety and it puts things in
perspective.

Thanks for the info,

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
<kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> > The digital+platinum or digital+silver methodology has a rich 
> > potential worth pursuing.There is just not enough time in 
> > this world to do it all.I'm surprise we don't have someone on 
> > this list who is only doing that.
> > 
> > John 
> 
> John, 
> 
> I have made a fair number of enlarged negs for pt/pd printing.  While
> certainly the in-camera LF neg will be "best", the lure of using a
smaller
> camera and digital post-processing is strong.  I have made enlarged negs
> using an imagesetter, inkjet and darkroom.  The problem with an
imagesetter
> is that it is old technology (I was at a press check yesterday for a
> publication using some of my pix, and the owner and I got to talking
about
> this subject.  He said he would make me an offer I can't refuse on
of their
> imagesetters...no thanks).  In addition, you will probably find that the
> common 2400 ppi imagesetter is not sufficient.  It requires (a) a
4800 ppi
> imagesetter and (b) an operator who can understand what you want,
both rare
> items.  If you want to try that, as I recall the Camera & Darkroom
store in
> Santa Fe has a connection with a pre-press there that has a high-res
> imagesetter and understands the requirements for an enlarged neg.
> 
> I remain to be convinced that an inkjet negative will do the job,
though I
> have certainly tried.  I must tell you that the finest pt/pd prints
I have
> seen in person, i.e. held in my lusting little hands as opposed to
viewing
> through glass) are made from small camera (35mm and 6x7cm) negs
enlarged in
> the darkroom to 20x24.  These are from Tom Millea
(www.tommillea.com) and
> David Kennedy (http://www.davidmichaelkennedy.com/indexold.html). 
Also to
> be considered is that the papers for pt/pd are textured and hide a
lot of
> flaws, unlike silver paper.  Anyway, FWIW that's my experience.  Now I'm
> going to have to order some of the Lenswork prints to see how things
have
> progressed (out of intellectual curiousity - I don't want to go back
in the
> darkroom and anyway, my wife is converting it into a room with lots of
> overhead UV lights for seedlings or whatever before they go the garden).
> 
>   --Ken