Digital BW, The Print

HI,

Thanks for the invite.  Although I am not a technical writer I think
that I might be able to bring some info to the table.

I looked today and you seem to be on a subject that would be out of my
range.  I have seen a few other messages that Phil
had posted and wanted to give some info on that subject:

He mentioned the Light Jet did up to 4x10 foot prints.  This is true of
the L/J 430,  but the L/J 5900 only goes up to 4x8 feet.
I only mention this because we have both.  Also, both of these use
photographic paper, not film.  This has become quite the
hot machine as people start to see that you can get a perfect print from
a digital file on real (chemical) photographic paper.
We have even made enlarged negs (16x20, 20x24) for platinum printing (on
Ilford clear material).  Right now, because the
market is flooded with so many digital ink jet printers that it has
become difficult to explain what "real" means to A&I.

His film test is actually being done on a Light Jet 2080 film recorder.
This machine is similar to the LVT, but uses some
different technology.  Other differences would be that you can not run
paper through it, only 8x10 or 11x14 film.  The neg is
exposed digitally and then processed conventionally in a Refrema dip and
dunk film processor using Extol developer and a
stop bath (I mention that because most labs don't use stop bath, for us
it improves consistency).

Some other fun info:

The 2080 was not designed to run B&W film at all, Chip had to make up
his own LUT and work through some handling
issues.

Previous to Chips doing this R&D, we had never seen a truly killer
digital B&W neg.  We had seen many negs from all over
the country, but we could always find flaws.

Just like the L/J printers, its really all about the scan, good scan
means good neg / trans, bad scan means bad neg.

So, let me know when I can be of assistance. I will be happy to help
with anything that I have info on.


Thanks again for the invitation.

Brian Greenberg
A&I Color
General Manager

Brian,

Welcome and thanks for all the information. I'm really glad you could 
make it.

I'm going to go ahead and post a shorter version of the questions I 
sent you earlier since I think that they will be of general interest.

What is the B&W print output from the LightJets like? Do you use 
color paper to get a monochrome image or is it possible to use B&W 
paper in the LightJets? And if you can use B&W paper would it be 
possible to use fiber base paper rather than RC?

The reason I ask is that in "fine art" B&W photography the fiber base 
print is the standard. Galleries are very reluctant to accept 
anything else. Although they will except color work on Ilforchrome. 
Not much logic to it but that is the situation.

Do you think that the techniques you used to make the LightJet 
contact negs for platinum printing on the Ilford clear material would 
be suitable for contact printing onto silver gelatin paper?

You mention that the 2080 will take 11X14 film but on your website 
11X14 B&W is not offered an option. I know that this is not a 
standard size but if someone supplied the film could you process it?

I am not surprised that the 2080 was not designed for B&W. The 
economics of the market have put color on top and digital 
alternatives for B&W prints are few and far between. The main reason 
I started up the list was to find our what is available and how best 
to use it.

As you say scanning is everything. Only now do I realize that my 
first attempts to go digital 5 years ago failed mostly through poor 
scans.  

Thanks again,

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Brian Greenberg 
<brian@a...> wrote:
> 
> HI,
> 
> Thanks for the invite.  Although I am not a technical writer I think
> that I might be able to bring some info to the table.
> 
> I looked today and you seem to be on a subject that would be out of 
my
> range.  I have seen a few other messages that Phil
> had posted and wanted to give some info on that subject:
> 
> He mentioned the Light Jet did up to 4x10 foot prints.  This is 
true of
> the L/J 430,  but the L/J 5900 only goes up to 4x8 feet.
> I only mention this because we have both.  Also, both of these use
> photographic paper, not film.  This has become quite the
> hot machine as people start to see that you can get a perfect print 
from
> a digital file on real (chemical) photographic paper.
> We have even made enlarged negs (16x20, 20x24) for platinum 
printing (on
> Ilford clear material).  Right now, because the
> market is flooded with so many digital ink jet printers that it has
> become difficult to explain what "real" means to A&I.
> 
> His film test is actually being done on a Light Jet 2080 film 
recorder.
> This machine is similar to the LVT, but uses some
> different technology.  Other differences would be that you can not 
run
> paper through it, only 8x10 or 11x14 film.  The neg is
> exposed digitally and then processed conventionally in a Refrema 
dip and
> dunk film processor using Extol developer and a
> stop bath (I mention that because most labs don't use stop bath, 
for us
> it improves consistency).
> 
> Some other fun info:
> 
> The 2080 was not designed to run B&W film at all, Chip had to make 
up

> his own LUT and work through some handling
> issues.
> 
> Previous to Chips doing this R&D, we had never seen a truly killer
> digital B&W neg.  We had seen many negs from all over
> the country, but we could always find flaws.
> 
> Just like the L/J printers, its really all about the scan, good scan
> means good neg / trans, bad scan means bad neg.
> 
> So, let me know when I can be of assistance. I will be happy to help
> with anything that I have info on.
> 
> 
> Thanks again for the invitation.
> 
> Brian Greenberg
> A&I Color
> General Manager

Brian,

nice to see you join us here. I very much appreciate the info on the LightJets.
Perhaps you can help with some of the following questions:

- What are the resolutions that are possible for negs on the 2080?

- You mention 8x10 film, but I guess you can do 4x5 too, right? or do you have 
to gang them on an 8x10 sheet?

- Can you describe some key technology differences in the LightJet vs the 
LVT. For example, the LVT is a big rotating drum like an Iris. There is a head 
that shoots light through a valve etc. What is the basic principle of the LJ?

- Would you prefer files for bw negs submitted as RGB or gray?

- Do yo get a perfect neutral scale on Fuji Chrystal Archive BW prints?

- Are you exposing TMX or Tech Pan to avoid double grain?

-If one printed a grayscale on a bw neg in the 2080, what would be the dmax 
(for the 255 patch) - or is that variable depending on the LUT? In any case 
what would be the most that could be attained with your current calibrations?

Martin has already asked if you tried fiber BW paper  as opposed to either 
color or RC in the big LJ's.  Is there a solution for that at all?

Thanks again for your participation here. It's a big help for us.

Antonis Ricos

Hi Brian,

Thanks also from me for coming aboard and clearing up the equipment 
issues to the group.  I've been spending discussion time with Chip 
mainly in the area of quality issues, so have not been very clear on 
which machine was doing what. And that's actually much less important 
to me than results.  I do appreciate that you folks are working VERY 
hard on these tests, and I imagine they are far from easy.

I do wish someone would supply a more appropriate media for those of us 
who are B&W printers than Fuji Crystal Archive. I know Chip mentioned 
Ilford was hinting at coming up with some alternatives if there was 
enough demand.  It's unacceptable to me to give up the longevity of 
fiberbase paper for the significantly truncated lifespan of Crystal 
Archive, all just to have the convenience of PhotoShop for 
manipulations.  And the prints I've seen on FCA so far don't match the 
sharpness of B&W fiber, I presume this is due to the differences in 
emulsion thicknesses...

Thanks again for everything you guys are doing in this process.
Phil
http://philbard.com



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Brian Greenberg <brian@a...> 
wrote:
> 
> HI,
> 
> Thanks for the invite.  Although I am not a technical writer I think
> that I might be able to bring some info to the table.
> 
> I looked today and you seem to be on a subject that would be out of my
> range.  I have seen a few other messages that Phil
> had posted and wanted to give some info on that subject:
> 
> He mentioned the Light Jet did up to 4x10 foot prints.  This is true of
> the L/J 430,  but the L/J 5900 only goes up to 4x8 feet.
> I only mention this because we have both.  Also, both of these use
> photographic paper, not film.  This has become quite the
> hot machine as people start to see that you can get a perfect print 
from