Digital BW, The Print

on 8/3/01 8:06 PM PST, Phil Bard wrote:

> Point of clarification, apparently the digital negs they produce for
> enlargement purposes are created not on the Lightjet but a (Fuji?) Film
> Recorder 2080.  

Phil-
Out of curiosity, have you tried the LVT film recorder at Bowhaus?  (Not
that I have, but they have such a great rep).  Wonder what kind of film
recorder Bowhaus uses.  You have a choice of outputting to T-Max, Velvia,
Provia,  Ektachrome, and Portra, 4x5 or 8x10.

David Corwin

Everyone,

I won't have anything to report on the tests I'm conducting with A&I 
until early next week.  I spoke with them moments ago and they said 
film should be ready this afternoon, but I'm off to the Piezo Summit 
and won't be able to pick it up.

Point of clarification, apparently the digital negs they produce for 
enlargement purposes are created not on the Lightjet but a (Fuji?) Film 
Recorder 2080.  The Lightjet outputs Duratrans (as well as print 
media), but not camera film, and therefore is not suitable for my 
purposes.  Sorry for the misinformation, my initial meetings with them 
took place along with a fellow photographer who is testing their print 
output, and the specifics as to what device was doing what were not 
clarified.  I'm now dealing with the operators and getting my info 
straight from them.

They have stressed all along, however, and I should make this clear, 
that the initial phases of this process take time.  Everyone's film and 
enlarger combination is a bit different and they have to make several 
runs to get into sync with their client.  You would have to expect the 
same should you decide to go this route.

Have a great weekend, and I'll see some of you, no doubt, in Oakhurst.

Phil
http://philbard.com

This is a question for Antonis.  He has a lot of experience with them.
My impression is that the LVT has dynamic range limitations...

Phil

> Phil-
> Out of curiosity, have you tried the LVT film recorder at Bowhaus?  (Not
> that I have, but they have such a great rep).  Wonder what kind of film
> recorder Bowhaus uses.  You have a choice of outputting to T-Max, Velvia,
> Provia,  Ektachrome, and Portra, 4x5 or 8x10.

Phil,

By now you are hopefully in Oakhurst having a great time.

I checked A&I's site and it is a Lightjet 2080 which was made by 
Cymbologic. Cymbologic doesn't list it on their website so I wonder 
if it is out of production.

A Yahoo search on "Lightjet 2080" turned up a few mentions of other 
service bureaus that have them. Nancy scans has one but does not 
mention B&W. Found a deal on two used ones, a 1996 and 1997. If you 
have a spare $39,400 you could have one in your studio. No wonder the 
output costs a bit!

I like A&I's reply. You really are doing a system calibration from 
camera-scan-monitor-(proof printer)-digital neg-enlarger-print which 
is a rather long chain.

A rough idea for a possible calibration workflow:

Get a 4X5 Stauffer step tablet

Measure all the steps with a densitometer

Enlarge it onto your favorite #2 paper at the size you anticipate so 
that the print Dmin falls at least three steps from the end of the 
scale.

Raw scan the step tablet

Take it into Photoshop and in levels put the white point on the step 
that gave paper Dmax and the black point on the step that gave paper 
Dmin.

Output this file to the Lightjet 2080

Output the raw scan of the step tablet to the 2080.

Record the density of all the steps on these step tablets.

Hopefully this would give you enough information to create a transfer 
function to map from a negative/scan to Lightjet output.

I may be missing something here, but it might be a way to go simplify 
the system calibration.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Everyone,
> 
> I won't have anything to report on the tests I'm conducting with 
A&I 
> until early next week.  I spoke with them moments ago and they said 
> film should be ready this afternoon, but I'm off to the Piezo 
Summit 
> and won't be able to pick it up.
> 
> Point of clarification, apparently the digital negs they produce 
for 
> enlargement purposes are created not on the Lightjet but a (Fuji?) 
Film 
> Recorder 2080.  The Lightjet outputs Duratrans (as well as print 
> media), but not camera film, and therefore is not suitable for my 
> purposes.  Sorry for the misinformation, my initial meetings with 
them 
> took place along with a fellow photographer who is testing their 
print 
> output, and the specifics as to what device was doing what were not 
> clarified.  I'm now dealing with the operators and getting my info 
> straight from them.
> 
> They have stressed all along, however, and I should make this 
clear, 
> that the initial phases of this process take time.  Everyone's film 
and 
> enlarger combination is a bit different and they have to make 
several 
> runs to get into sync with their client.  You would have to expect 
the 
> same should you decide to go this route.
> 
> Have a great weekend, and I'll see some of you, no doubt, in 
Oakhurst.

> 
> Phil
> http://philbard.com

David,

I couldn't find much on the 2080 on the web but one blurb claimed 
that there was superior alighnment of the RGB lasers over the LVT 
giving enhanced sharpness. Wish there was more info on this.

Martin 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., David Corwin 
<davidcorwin@h...> wrote:
> on 8/3/01 8:06 PM PST, Phil Bard wrote:
> 
> > Point of clarification, apparently the digital negs they produce 
for
> > enlargement purposes are created not on the Lightjet but a 
(Fuji?) Film
> > Recorder 2080.  
> 
> Phil-
> Out of curiosity, have you tried the LVT film recorder at Bowhaus?  
(Not
> that I have, but they have such a great rep).  Wonder what kind of 
film
> recorder Bowhaus uses.  You have a choice of outputting to T-Max, 
Velvia,

> Provia,  Ektachrome, and Portra, 4x5 or 8x10.
> 
> David Corwin

David-
Bowhaus uses a Kodak LVT- I have had great success with it, primarily w/
T-max 4x5's 80 res, enlarged to 20x24 and above.  It's a great service.
(wish I could say the same about their scans, but that's another story...)

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, Mass.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., David Corwin
<davidcorwin@h...> wrote:
> Phil-
> Out of curiosity, have you tried the LVT film recorder at Bowhaus?
(Not
> that I have, but they have such a great rep).  Wonder what kind of
film
> recorder Bowhaus uses.  You have a choice of outputting to T-Max,
Velvia,
> Provia,  Ektachrome, and Portra, 4x5 or 8x10.
> 
> David Corwin


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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Bill,

Would you be willing to give us a run down on your workflow, camera 
to print? Also what you had to do, to get "calibration" between your 
computer and Bowhaus's LVT output?

I have though about how great it would be to do something like this 
for many years, but I've never run across anyone who has actually 
done it.

Thanks,
Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...> 
wrote:
> David-
> Bowhaus uses a Kodak LVT- I have had great success with it, 
primarily w/
> T-max 4x5's 80 res, enlarged to 20x24 and above.  It's a great 
service.
> (wish I could say the same about their scans, but that's another 
story...)

> 
> Bill Morse
> PhotoProspect
> Cambridge, Mass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., David Corwin
> <davidcorwin@h...> wrote:
> > Phil-
> > Out of curiosity, have you tried the LVT film recorder at Bowhaus?
> (Not
> > that I have, but they have such a great rep).  Wonder what kind of
> film
> > recorder Bowhaus uses.  You have a choice of outputting to T-Max,
> Velvia,
> > Provia,  Ektachrome, and Portra, 4x5 or 8x10.
> > 
> > David Corwin
> 
> 
> If you do not wish to belong to Digital B&W, The Print, you may
> unsubscribe by sending an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@y...
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike,
The digital neg is what got me here in the first place. I have not tried using my epson to produce a dig neg, but did produce image setter negatives that I contact printed on both silver and palladium-platinum as ziatypes. Some of the images were stunning, the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, I abandoned the effort because I found it extremely difficult to find service bureaus willing and able to do what I needed. Another occassional problem was related to the necessity of using a transfer function which tended to compress some areas of the gray scale. Realistically, you are probably dropping the number of distinct shades of gray to well less than 100. This works for some images, but in others you will see a little posterizing. This is why Dan Burkholder would often use two negatives for exposure, one to separate the shadows, and one to separate the highlights. Printing your own desktop negs will similarly affect the gray scale. In essence, you are going from a fairly linear gray scale to a more logarithmic one, consistent with the response of photographic vs printing materials.  I will be interested to hear how it goes.
You might consider dye based inks on pictoro translucent media. You might also be able to acheive some of the effect of the transfer function by varying the color along your gray scale, with red obvious being most dense as viewed by the sensitized photo materials, blue being more transparent. If I had enough time in this life...............................
Stephen


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

Stephen,

Your information is very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to 
share it.

I am going to check out the section of Dan's book that deals with making 
two negs. Hey, If this does not work there is always traditional 
enlarged negatives.

Mike

On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 05:20 PM, Stephen Kundell, MD wrote:

> Mike,
> The digital neg is what got me here in the first place. I have not 
> tried using my epson to produce a dig neg, but did produce image setter 
> negatives that I contact printed on both silver and palladium-platinum 
> as ziatypes. Some of the images were stunning, the best of both worlds. 
> Unfortunately, I abandoned the effort because I found it extremely 
> difficult to find service bureaus willing and able to do what I needed. 
> Another occassional problem was related to the necessity of using a 
> transfer function which tended to compress some areas of the gray 
> scale. Realistically, you are probably dropping the number of distinct 
> shades of gray to well less than 100. This works for some images, but 
> in others you will see a little posterizing. This is why Dan Burkholder 
> would often use two negatives for exposure, one to separate the 
> shadows, and one to separate the highlights. Printing your own desktop 
> negs will similarly affect the gray scale. In essence, you are going 
> from a fairly linear gray scale to a more logarithmic one, consistent 
> with the response of photographic vs printing materials.  I will be 
> interested to hear how it goes.
> You might consider dye based inks on pictoro translucent media. You 
> might also be able to acheive some of the effect of the transfer 
> function by varying the color along your gray scale, with red obvious 
> being most dense as viewed by the sensitized photo materials, blue 
> being more transparent. If I had enough time in this 
> life...............................
> Stephen
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

HI all;
Here's my 2 cents worth on digital negs:
the idea of printing digital negs is what finally got me to buy into 
the whole computer thing 3 years ago-but three years ago the 
available printers wheren't good enough. I took another stab at it a 
couple of weeks ago with Pictorico OTF and dye inks, test printing 
the output on silver RC paper. I could see from the 2-3 tries I made 
that it could work in terms of contrast and tonal range, but the 
film showed marked microbanding that showed up a lot in the 
higlights, and the heavy-inked areas like skies, also showed 
gritiness similar to a black-only print. My first impression is that 
this material in order to be useable, needs to be printed as a 
spectral image in red-orange for non-VC papers, or perhaps magenta 
for VC papers, with little or no black ink in use. I think it'll 
work well for alternative processes, but not well enough for silver 
prints. My next attempt will be on Photo Quality Glossy film-it's 
available up to 13x19, and should produce a much smoother image, 
though obviously the exposure time would be longer.

Any one else?





-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Michael J. Kravit 
<mjkaia@k...> wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> Your information is very interesting. Thanks for taking the time 
to 
> share it.
> 
> I am going to check out the section of Dan's book that deals with 
making 
> two negs. Hey, If this does not work there is always traditional 
> enlarged negatives.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 05:20 PM, Stephen Kundell, MD wrote:
> 
> > Mike,
> > The digital neg is what got me here in the first place. I have 
not 
> > tried using my epson to produce a dig neg, but did produce image 
setter 
> > negatives that I contact printed on both silver and palladium-
platinum 
> > as ziatypes. Some of the images were stunning, the best of both 
worlds. 
> > Unfortunately, I abandoned the effort because I found it 
extremely 
> > difficult to find service bureaus willing and able to do what I 
needed. 
> > Another occassional problem was related to the necessity of 
using a 
> > transfer function which tended to compress some areas of the 
gray 
> > scale. Realistically, you are probably dropping the number of 
distinct 
> > shades of gray to well less than 100. This works for some 
images, but 
> > in others you will see a little posterizing. This is why Dan 
Burkholder 
> > would often use two negatives for exposure, one to separate the 
> > shadows, and one to separate the highlights. Printing your own 
desktop 
> > negs will similarly affect the gray scale. In essence, you are 
going 
> > from a fairly linear gray scale to a more logarithmic one, 
consistent 
> > with the response of photographic vs printing materials.  I will 
be 
> > interested to hear how it goes.
> > You might consider dye based inks on pictoro translucent media. 
You 
> > might also be able to acheive some of the effect of the transfer 
> > function by varying the color along your gray scale, with red 
obvious 
> > being most dense as viewed by the sensitized photo materials, 
blue 

> > being more transparent. If I had enough time in this 
> > life...............................
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >

Steve,

I have read that the PQGF does not work well for digital negatives. It 
imparts a gritty texture to the print.

What I have ascertained from the reading I have been doing and the 
prints that I am seeing locally is that you need to make two negatives. 
One for the shadow detail and one for the highlights. Then pin register 
and print the sandwich. One local printer is actually experimenting with 
three negatives, adding one for the mid tones. He tells me he has seen 
no loss in gray scale range as suggested in an earlier post.

He is using the color table method of making digital negatives as 
outlined in Berkholder's book.

Mike

On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 09:01 PM, stevekphoto wrote:

> HI all;
> Here's my 2 cents worth on digital negs:
> the idea of printing digital negs is what finally got me to buy into
> the whole computer thing 3 years ago-but three years ago the
> available printers wheren't good enough. I took another stab at it a
> couple of weeks ago with Pictorico OTF and dye inks, test printing
> the output on silver RC paper. I could see from the 2-3 tries I made
> that it could work in terms of contrast and tonal range, but the
> film showed marked microbanding that showed up a lot in the
> higlights, and the heavy-inked areas like skies, also showed
> gritiness similar to a black-only print. My first impression is that
> this material in order to be useable, needs to be printed as a
> spectral image in red-orange for non-VC papers, or perhaps magenta
> for VC papers, with little or no black ink in use. I think it'll
> work well for alternative processes, but not well enough for silver
> prints. My next attempt will be on Photo Quality Glossy film-it's
> available up to 13x19, and should produce a much smoother image,
> though obviously the exposure time would be longer.
>
> Any one else?
>
>
>
>
>
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Michael J. Kravit
> <mjkaia@k...> wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Your information is very interesting. Thanks for taking the time
> to
>> share it.
>>
>> I am going to check out the section of Dan's book that deals with
> making
>> two negs. Hey, If this does not work there is always traditional
>> enlarged negatives.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 05:20 PM, Stephen Kundell, MD wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>> The digital neg is what got me here in the first place. I have
> not
>>> tried using my epson to produce a dig neg, but did produce image
> setter
>>> negatives that I contact printed on both silver and palladium-
> platinum
>>> as ziatypes. Some of the images were stunning, the best of both
> worlds.
>>> Unfortunately, I abandoned the effort because I found it
> extremely
>>> difficult to find service bureaus willing and able to do what I
> needed.
>>> Another occassional problem was related to the necessity of
> using a
>>> transfer function which tended to compress some areas of the
> gray
>>> scale. Realistically, you are probably dropping the number of
> distinct
>>> shades of gray to well less than 100. This works for some
> images, but
>>> in others you will see a little posterizing. This is why Dan
> Burkholder
>>> would often use two negatives for exposure, one to separate the
>>> shadows, and one to separate the highlights. Printing your own
> desktop
>>> negs will similarly affect the gray scale. In essence, you are
> going
>>> from a fairly linear gray scale to a more logarithmic one,
> consistent
>>> with the response of photographic vs printing materials.  I will
> be
>>> interested to hear how it goes.
>>> You might consider dye based inks on pictoro translucent media.
> You
>>> might also be able to acheive some of the effect of the transfer
>>> function by varying the color along your gray scale, with red
> obvious
>>> being most dense as viewed by the sensitized photo materials,
> blue
>>> being more transparent. If I had enough time in this
>>> life...............................
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

That sounds like enough of a PITA to keep me using my ceurrent 
solution, at least for the hand-coated Liquid Light prints: 
photographing the completed image of my monitor. That does quite 
well up to about 11x14, as long as you don't pull out the lupe.

Steve

http://www.stevekphoto.com
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Michael J. Kravit 
<mjkaia@k...> wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> I have read that the PQGF does not work well for digital 
negatives. It 
> imparts a gritty texture to the print.
> 
> What I have ascertained from the reading I have been doing and the 
> prints that I am seeing locally is that you need to make two 
negatives. 
> One for the shadow detail and one for the highlights. Then pin 
register 
> and print the sandwich. One local printer is actually 
experimenting with 
> three negatives, adding one for the mid tones. He tells me he has 
seen 
> no loss in gray scale range as suggested in an earlier post.
> 
> He is using the color table method of making digital negatives as 
> outlined in Berkholder's book.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 09:01 PM, stevekphoto wrote:
> 
> > HI all;
> > Here's my 2 cents worth on digital negs:
> > the idea of printing digital negs is what finally got me to buy 
into
> > the whole computer thing 3 years ago-but three years ago the
> > available printers wheren't good enough. I took another stab at 
it a
> > couple of weeks ago with Pictorico OTF and dye inks, test 
printing
> > the output on silver RC paper. I could see from the 2-3 tries I 
made
> > that it could work in terms of contrast and tonal range, but the
> > film showed marked microbanding that showed up a lot in the
> > higlights, and the heavy-inked areas like skies, also showed
> > gritiness similar to a black-only print. My first impression is 
that
> > this material in order to be useable, needs to be printed as a
> > spectral image in red-orange for non-VC papers, or perhaps 
magenta
> > for VC papers, with little or no black ink in use. I think it'll
> > work well for alternative processes, but not well enough for 
silver
> > prints. My next attempt will be on Photo Quality Glossy film-it's
> > available up to 13x19, and should produce a much smoother image,
> > though obviously the exposure time would be longer.
> >
> > Any one else?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Michael J. Kravit
> > <mjkaia@k...> wrote:
> >> Stephen,
> >>
> >> Your information is very interesting. Thanks for taking the time
> > to
> >> share it.
> >>
> >> I am going to check out the section of Dan's book that deals 
with
> > making
> >> two negs. Hey, If this does not work there is always traditional
> >> enlarged negatives.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 05:20 PM, Stephen Kundell, MD 
wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mike,
> >>> The digital neg is what got me here in the first place. I have
> > not
> >>> tried using my epson to produce a dig neg, but did produce 
image
> > setter
> >>> negatives that I contact printed on both silver and palladium-
> > platinum
> >>> as ziatypes. Some of the images were stunning, the best of both
> > worlds.
> >>> Unfortunately, I abandoned the effort because I found it
> > extremely
> >>> difficult to find service bureaus willing and able to do what I
> > needed.
> >>> Another occassional problem was related to the necessity of
> > using a
> >>> transfer function which tended to compress some areas of the
> > gray
> >>> scale. Realistically, you are probably dropping the number of
> > distinct
> >>> shades of gray to well less than 100. This works for some
> > images, but
> >>> in others you will see a little posterizing. This is why Dan
> > Burkholder
> >>> would often use two negatives for exposure, one to separate the
> >>> shadows, and one to separate the highlights. Printing your own
> > desktop
> >>> negs will similarly affect the gray scale. In essence, you are
> > going
> >>> from a fairly linear gray scale to a more logarithmic one,
> > consistent
> >>> with the response of photographic vs printing materials.  I 
will
> > be
> >>> interested to hear how it goes.
> >>> You might consider dye based inks on pictoro translucent media.
> > You
> >>> might also be able to acheive some of the effect of the 
transfer
> >>> function by varying the color along your gray scale, with red
> > obvious
> >>> being most dense as viewed by the sensitized photo materials,
> > blue
> >>> being more transparent. If I had enough time in this
> >>> life...............................
> >>> Stephen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls 
> > and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is 
at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to 
> > keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
subject 

> > header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> > "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> > various resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

Photographing your monitor?
Yikes!  What's up with that?

Mike

On Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 09:25 PM, stevekphoto wrote:

> That sounds like enough of a PITA to keep me using my ceurrent
> solution, at least for the hand-coated Liquid Light prints:
> photographing the completed image of my monitor. That does quite
> well up to about 11x14, as long as you don't pull out the lupe.
>
> Steve
>