Digital BW, The Print

Based on posts from the Epson 7000 users (George, Ron, Nij), 
resolution discussion on Phil Bard's LVT work, and some observations 
of my own, I have some questions about final print size using digital 
methods verses traditional enlargement.

First of all the amount of enlargement and the acceptable sharpness 
has a great deal of personal taste involved. For myself I have been 
extremely conservative in the darkroom over the last decade. I once 
routinely printed 35mm on 11X14 and occasionally 16X20. As I moved 
more into 4X5 view camera work I now only print 35mm up to 8X10, my 
6cmX7cm negs at 11X14. The 4X5 has stayed on 11X14 paper due to lack 
of darkroom space but from other peoples work I would be comfortable 
up to 20X24. Beyond that and I start to think of 5X7 and 8X10 negs.

Now the impression I have gotten from digital is that there is a loss 
of resolution and sharpness in the process of scanning. This led me 
to believe that I would need to print slightly smaller. However, when 
I got my first film scanner (Polaroid 4000) I was making a print from 
35mm on 8.5X11 paper which was looking good and I didn't see any 
sharpness loss compared to a traditional silver print from the same 
neg.

On a whim I stuck a sheet of 13X19 paper in my 1200. The results were 
astounding! I would not have believed there was that much detail in 
the negative or that the print would look that good. Granted if it 
had been a 4x5 neg to start with it would have been even better but 
my impression was that is was better than what I would expect to get 
from a silver print of the same size.

While there may be loss of sharpness/resolution between the original 
negative and the scan, there seems to be little loss between scan and 
final print. My thought is that the total loss in sharpness in the 
negative-to-scanner-to-printer process may be less than the loss in 
the negative-enlarger-silver paper process.

If I am correct, please jump in here with you opinions. This would be 
another significant reason to make the digital switch in addition to 
the wonders of Photoshop and getting out of the darkroom.

This would also suggest that if your final output for your digital 
file will be silver gelatin,  a neg-scan-digital printer-contact neg-
silver paper might offer better sharpness over a neg-scan-digital 
printer-enlarging neg-enlarger-silver paper.

Does any of this sound reasonable?

Martin

Martin,

I have a state-of-the-art ZBE color enlarger with a Condit pin registration
masking negative carrier that I'll probably never stick another piece of
film into.  Does that convey my opinion?  <g>

I'm having great success making 16x20 digital negatives on Pictorico OHP
film for both silver and platinum printing.  I agree that the first method,
i.e., contact printing is the way to go.  Why introduce optics and alignment
issues where you don't need them?

And you forgot to mention that digital USM is infinitely better and easier
than analog methods.

Ron

  > While there may be loss of sharpness/resolution between the original
  > negative and the scan, there seems to be little loss between scan and
  > final print. My thought is that the total loss in sharpness in the
  > negative-to-scanner-to-printer process may be less than the loss in
  > the negative-enlarger-silver paper process.

  > This would also suggest that if your final output for your digital
  > file will be silver gelatin,  a neg-scan-digital printer-contact neg-
  > silver paper might offer better sharpness over a neg-scan-digital
  > printer-enlarging neg-enlarger-silver paper.

  > Does any of this sound reasonable?

  > Martin




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., mwesley250@e... wrote:

> Based on posts from the Epson 7000 users (George, Ron, Nij), 
> resolution discussion on Phil Bard's LVT work, and some observations 
> of my own, I have some questions about final print size using digital 
> methods verses traditional enlargement.
> 
> First of all the amount of enlargement and the acceptable sharpness 
> has a great deal of personal taste involved. For myself I have been 
> extremely conservative in the darkroom over the last decade. I once 
> routinely printed 35mm on 11X14 and occasionally 16X20. As I moved 
> more into 4X5 view camera work I now only print 35mm up to 8X10, my 
> 6cmX7cm negs at 11X14. The 4X5 has stayed on 11X14 paper due to lack 
> of darkroom space but from other peoples work I would be comfortable 
> up to 20X24. Beyond that and I start to think of 5X7 and 8X10 negs.
> 
> Now the impression I have gotten from digital is that there is a loss 
> of resolution and sharpness in the process of scanning. This led me 
> to believe that I would need to print slightly smaller. However, when 
> I got my first film scanner (Polaroid 4000) I was making a print from 
> 35mm on 8.5X11 paper which was looking good and I didn't see any 
> sharpness loss compared to a traditional silver print from the same 
> neg.
> 
> On a whim I stuck a sheet of 13X19 paper in my 1200. The results were 
> astounding! I would not have believed there was that much detail in 
> the negative or that the print would look that good. Granted if it 
> had been a 4x5 neg to start with it would have been even better but 
> my impression was that is was better than what I would expect to get 
> from a silver print of the same size.
> 
> While there may be loss of sharpness/resolution between the original 
> negative and the scan, there seems to be little loss between scan and 
> final print. My thought is that the total loss in sharpness in the 
> negative-to-scanner-to-printer process may be less than the loss in 
> the negative-enlarger-silver paper process.
> 
> If I am correct, please jump in here with you opinions. This would be 
> another significant reason to make the digital switch in addition to 
> the wonders of Photoshop and getting out of the darkroom.
> 
> This would also suggest that if your final output for your digital 
> file will be silver gelatin,  a neg-scan-digital printer-contact neg-
> silver paper might offer better sharpness over a neg-scan-digital 
> printer-enlarging neg-enlarger-silver paper.
> 
> Does any of this sound reasonable?
> 
> Martin

Martin,

To answer your question, I find that a print on my 7000 from a 6x6 
negative at 20x24 compared to a print of the same negative on silver 
paper is sharper and shows less grain and more detail.

Of course I drum scan on my Howtek D4000 at 4000dpi. My 4x5 negatives 
have been printed up to 24x36 and are amazing. I have also printed 
35mm negs to 20x24, but grain becomes an issue as well as loss of 
smooth continuous tone gradations.

Most of my work is shot at 6x9 or 4x5 and I must say that on my 7000 
with Cones Piezo RIP the resulting 20x24 and 24x36 prints are as good 
as if not better than my traditional silver prints. 

I believe that the scan is the key to great prints. High quality drum 
scans can't be beat for large format prints.

Mike

Ron,

I have yet to try the OHP for contact negatives. You say that you are using
it for silver as well as platinum. How would you describe the quality for
silver prints? What printer and inkset are you using to make the negatives?

Thanks

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Landucci" <ron@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Degree of Enlargement, Digital vs Silver


> Martin,
>
> I have a state-of-the-art ZBE color enlarger with a Condit pin
registration
> masking negative carrier that I'll probably never stick another piece of
> film into.  Does that convey my opinion?  <g>
>
> I'm having great success making 16x20 digital negatives on Pictorico OHP
> film for both silver and platinum printing.  I agree that the first
method,
> i.e., contact printing is the way to go.  Why introduce optics and
alignment

> issues where you don't need them?
>
> And you forgot to mention that digital USM is infinitely better and easier
> than analog methods.
>
> Ron
>
>   > While there may be loss of sharpness/resolution between the original
>   > negative and the scan, there seems to be little loss between scan and
>   > final print. My thought is that the total loss in sharpness in the
>   > negative-to-scanner-to-printer process may be less than the loss in
>   > the negative-enlarger-silver paper process.
>
>   > This would also suggest that if your final output for your digital
>   > file will be silver gelatin,  a neg-scan-digital printer-contact neg-
>   > silver paper might offer better sharpness over a neg-scan-digital
>   > printer-enlarging neg-enlarger-silver paper.
>
>   > Does any of this sound reasonable?
>
>   > Martin
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> If you do not wish to belong to Digital B&W, The Print, you may
> unsubscribe by sending an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Ron,

Can you share your workflow with us on making the contact negs? And 
your source for the Pictorio OHP film.

I always think of Howard Bond when I think of unsharp masking. I 
wonder if he has taken a shot at digital. 

Thanks,
Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ron Landucci" <ron@p...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> I have a state-of-the-art ZBE color enlarger with a Condit pin 
registration
> masking negative carrier that I'll probably never stick another 
piece of
> film into.  Does that convey my opinion?  <g>
> 
> I'm having great success making 16x20 digital negatives on 
Pictorico OHP
> film for both silver and platinum printing.  I agree that the first 
method,
> i.e., contact printing is the way to go.  Why introduce optics and 
alignment
> issues where you don't need them?
> 
> And you forgot to mention that digital USM is infinitely better and 
easier
> than analog methods.
> 
> Ron
> 
>   > While there may be loss of sharpness/resolution between the 
original
>   > negative and the scan, there seems to be little loss between 
scan and
>   > final print. My thought is that the total loss in sharpness in 
the
>   > negative-to-scanner-to-printer process may be less than the 
loss in
>   > the negative-enlarger-silver paper process.
> 
>   > This would also suggest that if your final output for your 
digital
>   > file will be silver gelatin,  a neg-scan-digital printer-
contact neg-
>   > silver paper might offer better sharpness over a neg-scan-
digital

>   > printer-enlarging neg-enlarger-silver paper.
> 
>   > Does any of this sound reasonable?
> 
>   > Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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)

Mike,

Thanks for the feedback. From comments to my post, I think that 
digital really does offer the opportunity to get more detail off of 
our negatives and onto the B&W print.

This really isn't the attitude you hear though. There is still get 
the impression that people fell that going digital in B&W it is to 
accept a step down in quality. Hopefully this attitude is starting to 
change.

It does sound like one exception would be very large prints from 
grainy negatives. Here at traditional optical enlarger's softness 
would put some tone between the grains. But then again you could 
probably take care of this in Photoshop.

Your assessment of the critical link between print quality and 
scanning is very true. It took me quite awhile to realize that the 
problems with my inkjet prints were in the scans I was working with.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Michael J. Kravit" 
<kravit@b...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> To answer your question, I find that a print on my 7000 from a 6x6 
> negative at 20x24 compared to a print of the same negative on 
silver 
> paper is sharper and shows less grain and more detail.
> 
> Of course I drum scan on my Howtek D4000 at 4000dpi. My 4x5 
negatives 
> have been printed up to 24x36 and are amazing. I have also printed 
> 35mm negs to 20x24, but grain becomes an issue as well as loss of 
> smooth continuous tone gradations.
> 
> Most of my work is shot at 6x9 or 4x5 and I must say that on my 
7000 
> with Cones Piezo RIP the resulting 20x24 and 24x36 prints are as 
good 
> as if not better than my traditional silver prints. 
> 
> I believe that the scan is the key to great prints. High quality 
drum 

> scans can't be beat for large format prints.
> 
> Mike

Scott/Martin

My workflow is derived from the method Dan Burkholder describes in his book,
Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing, 2nd ed., which I would highly
recommend to anyone interested in the technique.  You can buy the book
directly from Dan, www.danburkholder.com.  I have used the Epson 3000 and
the 7000 with Cone's inks and my own curves to get 16x20 negs for silver
prints.  You have to spray the film to fix the inks to prevent smearing.  I
use MacDonald's Luster Lacquer spray.  I think the fiber silver prints look
great - no dots.  But I'm still preferring the look of piezography on
Hahnemuhle German Etching Board.  Something about the plush watercolor
papers just captivates me.  Perhaps I'm just tired of the silver print look.

I've made some negatives with Cone's inks that work well for platinum
prints, but I've started to use the 1270 with color inks to make spectral
negatives that effectively have more contrast for contact printing with the
UV light.  I'm still tweaking my curves for this work.

The specifics of the workflow are far too complicated to reproduce here
(read -  I'm too lazy to type that much), just buy Dan's book if you're
going to pursue this.

I buy my Pictorico OHP film from Tim Gillespie because he's just up the road
from me.  His website is http://www.uncletim.com/film.htm.  You can also get
it directly from Pictorico for the same price.  Their website is
www.pictorico.com.

Howard Bond is a great guy and teacher.  I've taken his unsharp masking
workshop.  IMHO, I think he goes overboard with his masking.  A lot of his
images look too crunchy.

Ron


  Can you share your workflow with us on making the contact negs? And
  your source for the Pictorio OHP film.

  I always think of Howard Bond when I think of unsharp masking. I
  wonder if he has taken a shot at digital.

  Thanks,
  Martin



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Martin,

I'm not sure if the limit on size has to do with the capability of the 
LJ or simply what is feasible for them to stock in terms of the film.  
The machine is capable of making prints up to 48x96 so I wouldn't think 
that it's a magnification issue.  I'm expecting to see them before I go 
off to the Piezo Summit on Friday, and I'll try to remember to ask.  
It's one of about 15 questions I have for them so I'll do my best to 
remember. Although expensive (its all relative of course- how much for 
an Epson 7000 and software??) the production of a high quality contact 
neg could well be the best possible way to print silver.  Its a one-
time charge for each neg, afterall...

Don't know about Duratrans, does it have an absorbant layer to hold the 
ink?  If not you will get pooling.  I've only briefly tested the 
Pictorico, and as I said, the blacks were a little weak. I used an 1160 
with PiezoBW inks. For continuous tone images perhaps it would be fine 
as the edge sharpness might be less of an issue than with type. Also 
maybe the quantity of ink laydown could be tweaked.  I couldn't get the 
detail to stay tight and wonder if something wasn't set up right.  I 
did a nozzle alignment and that was right on, but the fine detail was 
not up to par, in my opinion.  Perhaps I'll take another shot at it, 
although I have some other priorities that are in first place.

Cheers,
Phil
http://philbard.com

> 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
>

Ron,

I have Burkholders book. It is a great resource.

I tried making negs with my 1200 some time ago. I tried both density and
"spectral density" negs on inkjet transparency material. It was a failure
with both. The transparency materials just could not hold enough ink. Paper
negs were interesting but I could not eliminate the fibers in the final
prints.

Most people that I have heard from are making negs for alternative processes
and not silver. That is why I wanted to hear from someone making silver
prints with the OHP.

Thanks for the information.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Landucci" <ron@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 8:09 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Degree of Enlargement, Digital vs Silver


> Scott/Martin
>
> My workflow is derived from the method Dan Burkholder describes in his
book,
> Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing, 2nd ed., which I would
highly
> recommend to anyone interested in the technique.  You can buy the book
> directly from Dan, www.danburkholder.com.  I have used the Epson 3000 and
> the 7000 with Cone's inks and my own curves to get 16x20 negs for silver
> prints.  You have to spray the film to fix the inks to prevent smearing.
I
> use MacDonald's Luster Lacquer spray.  I think the fiber silver prints
look
> great - no dots.  But I'm still preferring the look of piezography on
> Hahnemuhle German Etching Board.  Something about the plush watercolor
> papers just captivates me.  Perhaps I'm just tired of the silver print
look.
>
> I've made some negatives with Cone's inks that work well for platinum
> prints, but I've started to use the 1270 with color inks to make spectral
> negatives that effectively have more contrast for contact printing with
the
> UV light.  I'm still tweaking my curves for this work.
>
> The specifics of the workflow are far too complicated to reproduce here
> (read -  I'm too lazy to type that much), just buy Dan's book if you're
> going to pursue this.
>
> I buy my Pictorico OHP film from Tim Gillespie because he's just up the
road
> from me.  His website is http://www.uncletim.com/film.htm.  You can also
get

> it directly from Pictorico for the same price.  Their website is
> www.pictorico.com.
>
> Howard Bond is a great guy and teacher.  I've taken his unsharp masking
> workshop.  IMHO, I think he goes overboard with his masking.  A lot of his
> images look too crunchy.
>
> Ron
>
>
>   Can you share your workflow with us on making the contact negs? And
>   your source for the Pictorio OHP film.
>
>   I always think of Howard Bond when I think of unsharp masking. I
>   wonder if he has taken a shot at digital.
>
>   Thanks,
>   Martin
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> If you do not wish to belong to Digital B&W, The Print, you may
> unsubscribe by sending an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Ron,

Appreciate the workflow and resources. I will get Dan Burkholder's 
book. I have the first edition but I imagine a lot has changed. I 
will check out his site and invite him to the group in hopes we can 
quiz him directly. If anyone on list knows him, please let him know 
we're here.

A question on using the Piezo to print the negs. What profile did you 
use in Piezo or did you use the Epson driver?

I guess unsharp masking can be just as seductive in the darkroom!

Thanks,
Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ron Landucci" <ron@p...> 
wrote:
> Scott/Martin
> 
> My workflow is derived from the method Dan Burkholder describes in 
his book,
> Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing, 2nd ed., which I 
would highly
> recommend to anyone interested in the technique.  You can buy the 
book
> directly from Dan, www.danburkholder.com.  I have used the Epson 
3000 and
> the 7000 with Cone's inks and my own curves to get 16x20 negs for 
silver
> prints.  You have to spray the film to fix the inks to prevent 
smearing.  I
> use MacDonald's Luster Lacquer spray.  I think the fiber silver 
prints look
> great - no dots.  But I'm still preferring the look of piezography 
on
> Hahnemuhle German Etching Board.  Something about the plush 
watercolor
> papers just captivates me.  Perhaps I'm just tired of the silver 
print look.
> 
> I've made some negatives with Cone's inks that work well for 
platinum
> prints, but I've started to use the 1270 with color inks to make 
spectral
> negatives that effectively have more contrast for contact printing 
with the
> UV light.  I'm still tweaking my curves for this work.
> 
> The specifics of the workflow are far too complicated to reproduce 
here
> (read -  I'm too lazy to type that much), just buy Dan's book if 
you're
> going to pursue this.
> 
> I buy my Pictorico OHP film from Tim Gillespie because he's just up 
the road
> from me.  His website is http://www.uncletim.com/film.htm.  You can 
also get
> it directly from Pictorico for the same price.  Their website is
> www.pictorico.com.
> 
> Howard Bond is a great guy and teacher.  I've taken his unsharp 
masking
> workshop.  IMHO, I think he goes overboard with his masking.  A lot 
of his
> images look too crunchy.
> 
> Ron
(snip earlier)

Phil,

I am curious about the capability but due to the huge costs involved 
it is not something I could pursue at the moment. From reading View 
Camera I know there are people out there working with very large 
cameras. Michael A. Smith has done a lot of wonderful stuff. The 
reproductions I have seen of his photos made by contact printing from 
20x24 negatives exposed in camera are incredible!

There are many others that are working in 11x14, 8x20, 16x20, etc. 
The biggest I recall was 30x40!

Unfortunately availability of sheet film in larger sizes continues to 
shrink. Anything over 8x10 is special order with minimum orders in 
the range of $5,000 if I recall correctly.

I wish I could follow up on this workflow: make a high resolution 
scan of a good 4x5 original neg, manipulate it in Photoshop, output a 
neg to silver 20X24 B&W film using the Lightjet, contact print on a 
premium fiber paper. I suspect that it might be the Rolls-Royce 
method of silver printing with a Rolls-Royce price unfortunately.

I haven't seen the Duratrans material but I noticed it as a Lightjet 
output option at the A&I website. (Both Benoit and I have e-mailed 
them invitations to joint the group here. If you see them, pass it 
along in case they missed it.) I believe it is the color transparency 
material for large displays. I saw something like this a few years 
ago and the clear film had a grainy quality that might be a problem 
for contact printing.

Do you recall what profile you used with Piezo to print on the 
Pictorico?

Piezo summit?

Enjoy and thanks for all the info.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> I'm not sure if the limit on size has to do with the capability of 
the 
> LJ or simply what is feasible for them to stock in terms of the 
film.  
> The machine is capable of making prints up to 48x96 so I wouldn't 
think 
> that it's a magnification issue.  I'm expecting to see them before 
I go 
> off to the Piezo Summit on Friday, and I'll try to remember to 
ask.  
> It's one of about 15 questions I have for them so I'll do my best 
to 
> remember. Although expensive (its all relative of course- how much 
for 
> an Epson 7000 and software??) the production of a high quality 
contact 
> neg could well be the best possible way to print silver.  Its a one-
> time charge for each neg, afterall...
> 
> Don't know about Duratrans, does it have an absorbant layer to hold 
the 
> ink?  If not you will get pooling.  I've only briefly tested the 
> Pictorico, and as I said, the blacks were a little weak. I used an 
1160 
> with PiezoBW inks. For continuous tone images perhaps it would be 
fine 
> as the edge sharpness might be less of an issue than with type. 
Also 
> maybe the quantity of ink laydown could be tweaked.  I couldn't get 
the 
> detail to stay tight and wonder if something wasn't set up right.  
I 
> did a nozzle alignment and that was right on, but the fine detail 
was 
> not up to par, in my opinion.  Perhaps I'll take another shot at 
it, 
> although I have some other priorities that are in first place.
> 
> Cheers,
> Phil
> http://philbard.com
> 
> 
> > 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
> >

Had a brief conversation with A&I this afternoon, and the particular 
Lightjet they are using to output film for enlargment only goes up to 
8x10. In that they use Ilford Delta 100.  Their Lightjet 5900 is called 
in for print output, and I think will image larger film sizes but not 
as well.  What works best for contacting is a question for them 
directly.

> I wish I could follow up on this workflow: make a high resolution 
> scan of a good 4x5 original neg, manipulate it in Photoshop, output a 
> neg to silver 20X24 B&W film using the Lightjet, contact print on a 
> premium fiber paper. I suspect that it might be the Rolls-Royce 
> method of silver printing with a Rolls-Royce price unfortunately.
> 
> I haven't seen the Duratrans material but I noticed it as a Lightjet 
> output option at the A&I website. (Both Benoit and I have e-mailed 
> them invitations to joint the group here. If you see them, pass it 
> along in case they missed it.) I believe it is the color transparency 
> material for large displays. I saw something like this a few years 
> ago and the clear film had a grainy quality that might be a problem 
> for contact printing.
> 
> Do you recall what profile you used with Piezo to print on the 
> Pictorico?
> 

I think it was Epson Photo Paper.


> Piezo summit?

Yes, the West Coast Imaging Piezography summit in Oakhurst, CA, just 
outside Yosemite.  Check on their website, http://westcoastimaging.com.  
I heard a rumor Jon Cone may be there.

Phil
http://philbard.com

> 
> Enjoy and thanks for all the info.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
> wrote:
> > Martin,
> > 
> > I'm not sure if the limit on size has to do with the capability of 
> the 
> > LJ or simply what is feasible for them to stock in terms of the 
> film.  
> > The machine is capable of making prints up to 48x96 so I wouldn't 
> think 
> > that it's a magnification issue.  I'm expecting to see them before 
> I go 
> > off to the Piezo Summit on Friday, and I'll try to remember to 
> ask.  
> > It's one of about 15 questions I have for them so I'll do my best 
> to 
> > remember. Although expensive (its all relative of course- how much 
> for 
> > an Epson 7000 and software??) the production of a high quality 
> contact 
> > neg could well be the best possible way to print silver.  Its a one-
> > time charge for each neg, afterall...
> > 
> > Don't know about Duratrans, does it have an absorbant layer to hold 
> the 
> > ink?  If not you will get pooling.  I've only briefly tested the 
> > Pictorico, and as I said, the blacks were a little weak. I used an 
> 1160 
> > with PiezoBW inks. For continuous tone images perhaps it would be 
> fine 
> > as the edge sharpness might be less of an issue than with type. 
> Also 
> > maybe the quantity of ink laydown could be tweaked.  I couldn't get 
> the 
> > detail to stay tight and wonder if something wasn't set up right.  
> I 
> > did a nozzle alignment and that was right on, but the fine detail 
> was 
> > not up to par, in my opinion.  Perhaps I'll take another shot at 
> it, 
> > although I have some other priorities that are in first place.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Phil
> > http://philbard.com
> > 
> > 
> > > 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
> > >

Phil,

Well 8x10 is large enough to be interesting for contact printing and 
affordable as well.

Thanks for the reminder on the Summit. I got the call for submissions 
but couldn't make the deadline. I have other commitments this weekend 
or I would try to make it up there. Hope you give a report when you 
return. Let us know how the pizza, I mean Piezo was.

Thanks,
Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Had a brief conversation with A&I this afternoon, and the 
particular 
> Lightjet they are using to output film for enlargment only goes up 
to 
> 8x10. In that they use Ilford Delta 100.  Their Lightjet 5900 is 
called 
> in for print output, and I think will image larger film sizes but 
not 
> as well.  What works best for contacting is a question for them 
> directly.
> 
> > I wish I could follow up on this workflow: make a high resolution 
> > scan of a good 4x5 original neg, manipulate it in Photoshop, 
output a 
> > neg to silver 20X24 B&W film using the Lightjet, contact print on 
a 
> > premium fiber paper. I suspect that it might be the Rolls-Royce 
> > method of silver printing with a Rolls-Royce price unfortunately.
> > 
> > I haven't seen the Duratrans material but I noticed it as a 
Lightjet 
> > output option at the A&I website. (Both Benoit and I have e-
mailed 
> > them invitations to joint the group here. If you see them, pass 
it 
> > along in case they missed it.) I believe it is the color 
transparency 
> > material for large displays. I saw something like this a few 
years 
> > ago and the clear film had a grainy quality that might be a 
problem 
> > for contact printing.
> > 
> > Do you recall what profile you used with Piezo to print on the 
> > Pictorico?
> > 
> 
> I think it was Epson Photo Paper.
> 
> 
> > Piezo summit?
> 
> Yes, the West Coast Imaging Piezography summit in Oakhurst, CA, 
just 
> outside Yosemite.  Check on their website, 
http://westcoastimaging.com.  
> I heard a rumor Jon Cone may be there.
> 
> Phil
> http://philbard.com
> > 
(snip earlier)