Digital BW, The Print

In his message to the members of the Digital Silver list, announcing this
new list, Martin Wesley said, near the end, "I would love to hear from
people who are outputting to film recorders and how that is working for
them. People printing B&W to the high-end printers such as Iris, Durst, etc.
Using digital to produce contact negatives for traditional B&W print
emulsions."
I agree and that is why I joined this list the instant I heard of it.
Unfortunately, so far I have seen no discussion at all of anything in these
areas. At this point the only the areas covered seem to be those already
covered very well by the Digital Silver and the Epson Inkjet lists. I use an
Epson 1280, myself, and am considering Jon Cone's system so the inkjet
printer postings are of interest to me but I'm hoping that this list will
cover something beyond inkjet.

 My particular interest right now is in finding ways to go from film
negatives, through computer processing, to final, archivally processed
silver prints. There are several ways to accomplish this and I would like to
explore the possibilities Others have done this, I'm sure, and I would very
much like to hear of their experiences, good and bad. I hope I'm not the
only one interested in such a discussion.


Hopingly,


Olaf Ringdahl

Olaf,

stick around and maybe these things will turn up. I'm interested in 
not going back to silver prints, but transfer for stone or copper 
plate. With time, maybe all of these will find some discussion.

Tim

> Unfortunately, so far I have seen no discussion at all of anything in
> these areas.
>
> I'm
> hoping that this list will cover something beyond inkjet.
> 
>  My particular interest right now is in finding ways to go from film
> negatives, through computer processing, to final, archivally processed
> silver prints.


--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Olaf,

I do indeed want to see discussion and information in this area but 
as you can see the membership and database is still small. The group 
is not yet 72 hours old. I am continuing to put out invitations when 
and where I can in hopes of pulling in more people who are doing 
something other than inkjet.

For what its worth I have some limited experience with the film 
recorder approach and Dan Burkholder's method to make half-tone 
contact negatives.

Using a film recorder to produce a negative from a Photoshop file to 
take back into the darkroom can be done. To make it work I think that 
you need to either own the recorder yourself (I believe that the 
Polaroid 8000 series which records in all formats up to 4X5 costs in 
the neighborhood of $12,000) or find a very knowledgeable and helpful 
service bureau to work with.

In either case you need to go through a system calibration from the 
image on your monitor to the film recorder to the finished print. I 
tried this with a local service bureau about 3 years ago and while I 
saw the possibilities in the system I ran into a number of issues.

The typical one was that the service bureau was used to working with 
color and had no feel for black and white. They wouldn't recognize a 
good B&W neg if it jumped up and bit them. The front desk wouldn't 
let me work directly with the person operating the recorder. (I 
should have walked away then and there but they were the only ones in 
my area with a recorder.)Their B&W film development was poor. I 
should have asked for the undeveloped film and processed it myself. 
Without knowing the recorder and what settings were possible (or used 
to make the negatives I received) I didn't see anyway to go through 
the necessary feedback loops to optimize the process. Ultimately the 
cost per cycle started getting too much for me.

Now this is not a very positive experience and should not be a 
reflection on the capability of the process. I hope that some of the 
people on this list may have had more experience than I in this area.

The I got farther with Dan Burkholder's method but once again I had 
to work through a service bureau, a much better one, but I still felt 
removed from the system and frustrated in trying to communicate my 
needs to the equipment operators.

At this point I would like to try the half-tone contact neg process 
again. I have my own scanners so that I can control that portion of 
the process and I have picked up one or two references about using 
inkjets to print contact negatives on clear film.

I would also direct you to Lens Work Quarterly magazine that also 
markets silver gelatin prints made using this process.

http://www.lenswork.com/lwg.htm

They are lacking in specifics but essentially print from a 425 line 
half-tone negative. These have gotten very good reviews as to their 
quality and if you want to see what can be achieved with this 
technique I suggest you buy a couple as they are very reasonably 
priced. This may be the best route to a traditional silver print from 
a digital file at this time.

Another approach is a hybrid. Masking is a traditional technique in 
conventional enlargement. I read an interesting article about using 
tissue paper sandwiched above the negative in a diffusion enlarger. 
You can use a pencil to create dodges on the tissue. This was being 
used with 4X5. The thought that occurred to me and probably others is 
why not make masks on clear and/or frosted film using an inkjet 
printer. You could even print on the masks with color ink to vary 
contrast across the image if you at printing on variable contrast 
silver paper.

I realize that I may not be telling you anything you don't already 
know but I hope that this may prompt additional information from 
people already in this group.

If you already have resources or information in these or other areas, 
please post them. I don't know when others working in this area will 
join us but if you put something up for them perhaps we can get some 
threads going.

Thanks,
Martin Wesley


 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Olaf Ringdahl" 
<o.ringdahl@a...> wrote:
> In his message to the members of the Digital Silver list, 
announcing this
> new list, Martin Wesley said, near the end, "I would love to hear 
from
> people who are outputting to film recorders and how that is working 
for
> them. People printing B&W to the high-end printers such as Iris, 
Durst, etc.
> Using digital to produce contact negatives for traditional B&W print
> emulsions."
> I agree and that is why I joined this list the instant I heard of 
it.
> Unfortunately, so far I have seen no discussion at all of anything 
in these
> areas. At this point the only the areas covered seem to be those 
already
> covered very well by the Digital Silver and the Epson Inkjet lists. 
I use an
> Epson 1280, myself, and am considering Jon Cone's system so the 
inkjet
> printer postings are of interest to me but I'm hoping that this 
list will
> cover something beyond inkjet.
> 
>  My particular interest right now is in finding ways to go from film
> negatives, through computer processing, to final, archivally 
processed
> silver prints. There are several ways to accomplish this and I 
would like to
> explore the possibilities Others have done this, I'm sure, and I 
would very
> much like to hear of their experiences, good and bad. I hope I'm 
not the

> only one interested in such a discussion.
> 
> 
> Hopingly,
> 
> 
> Olaf Ringdahl

on 7/30/01 6:18 PM, mwesley250@... wrote:

> Another approach is a hybrid. Masking is a traditional technique in
> conventional enlargement. I read an interesting article about using
> tissue paper sandwiched above the negative in a diffusion enlarger.
> You can use a pencil to create dodges on the tissue. This was being
> used with 4X5. The thought that occurred to me and probably others is
> why not make masks on clear and/or frosted film using an inkjet
> printer. You could even print on the masks with color ink to vary
> contrast across the image if you at printing on variable contrast
> silver paper.
> 
> I realize that I may not be telling you anything you don't already
> know but I hope that this may prompt additional information from
> people already in this group.

You sure told me something I didn't know. Great idea. Probably unworkable
for the smaller formats, but who knows?

Todd

BTW, it took all of 20 seconds for my post to show up on list. Now that's an
unmoderated list. I LIKE IT!!!!!

Todd

> on 7/30/01 6:18 PM, mwesley250@... wrote:
> 
>> Another approach is a hybrid. Masking is a traditional technique in
>> conventional enlargement. I read an interesting article about using
>> tissue paper sandwiched above the negative in a diffusion enlarger.
>> You can use a pencil to create dodges on the tissue. This was being
>> used with 4X5. The thought that occurred to me and probably others is
>> why not make masks on clear and/or frosted film using an inkjet
>> printer. You could even print on the masks with color ink to vary
>> contrast across the image if you at printing on variable contrast
>> silver paper.
>> 
>> I realize that I may not be telling you anything you don't already
>> know but I hope that this may prompt additional information from
>> people already in this group.
> 
> You sure told me something I didn't know. Great idea. Probably unworkable
> for the smaller formats, but who knows?
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Olaf,

Another idea for making contact negs that occured to me but never 
pursued, would be to have the Photoshop file output using a Durst 
Lambda or Cymbologic(?) laser printer onto the Fuji Crystal clear 
film as a reversed negative.

I have seen B&W prints on this color paper and they were very nice in 
terms of tone but have that RC paper look. But they do have a 
transparency film for making backlit displays and that might have 
possibilities for negs. Would need to see the film to be sure.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Olaf Ringdahl" 
<o.ringdahl@a...> wrote:
> In his message to the members of the Digital Silver list, 
announcing this
> new list, Martin Wesley said, near the end, "I would love to hear 
from
> people who are outputting to film recorders and how that is working 
for
> them. People printing B&W to the high-end printers such as Iris, 
Durst, etc.
> Using digital to produce contact negatives for traditional B&W print
> emulsions."
> I agree and that is why I joined this list the instant I heard of 
it.
> Unfortunately, so far I have seen no discussion at all of anything 
in these
> areas. (snip earlier)

Olaf,

the key technology for producing bw negs from digital files has been the LVT. 
That stands for Light Valve Technology and is a company that Kodak bought 
in the early nineties. It is sort of an Iris kind of set up in that a piece of film is 
attached to a drum which spins as a head scans across the width. The smaller 
of these can print 8x10 film, but bigger units can go to 11x16 (if my memory 
serves). They go up to res80 (2032 dpi). Because essentially the head shoots 
a tiny spot of light (modulated by the valve) the resultant film looks seamless. 
No scan lines, no raster pattern. 

However, they are designed with color transparencies in mind. Their limitation 
comes when exposing bw because of the need to reach a certain dmax for 
adequate contrast in darkroom printing. If they have to put out a lot of light, 
they tend to flair. So, a lab that sets them up for bw has to decide how much to 
push (usually TMX, sometimes TechPan) vs what LUTs to write for the pushed 
characteristic curve. As a result, there is no single standard  and you need to 
work with the lab and your printing paper to work around some limitations.

Essentially the density range (DR) of the original camera neg has to be 
compressed to whatever the dmax of the LVT is. In the processs, the tonal 
arrangement of the steps in the middle may shift and your paper characteristic 
curve may not like the new neg. 

Going to a higher sensitivity is not really an option because you end up with 
two sets of grains. Also an issue is that the size of your original neg may be 
changed to fit a 4x5 (printable 3.5x4.5) or larger. That may introduce other 
changes in your darkroom setup (lens etc).

 I  have plotted curves from negs from different labs and different setups to 
track how they interpret the grays in the file. I generally choose the snapier 
negs with the higher dmax. Even so, I will end up jumping two grades up to 
accomodate the shorter DR of the digital neg. That means that if I printed at 2  I 
will end up at close to 4 (in Magenta equivalents on my color head). But 
bottom line, you can get very good results and can exhibit straight and 
semi-digital (new term?) side by side without being obvious.

From what I hear, the same applies to a competing technology, sold by Durst 
as the Lamda and related line of printers. They work by RGB lasers and can 
take bw neg film. But I will let others who know more fill us in on that. Maybe 
someone from A&! can come and explain how the Durst machines work. If 
Benoit or Phil are reading this, perhaps they can help.

There is another line of technology that Martin mentioned, based on a CRT 
tube. These are the so called film recorders which are used in applications 
that are not as critical - such as presentation slides etc. I also don't know how 
far along they have come, but none of the high-end labs, that I know, use 
them. Because they are the most affordable (but not cheap!), they can be very 
useful for duping, stock portfolios etc. I don't have much experience with them 
though.

I hope this helps.


Antonis



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Olaf Ringdahl" <o.ringdahl@a...> 
wrote:

>  My particular interest right now is in finding ways to go from film
> negatives, through computer processing, to final, archivally processed
> silver prints. There are several ways to accomplish this and I would like to
> explore the possibilities

> From what I hear, the same applies to a competing technology, sold by Durst 
> as the Lamda and related line of printers. They work by RGB lasers and can 
> take bw neg film. But I will let others who know more fill us in on that. Maybe 
> someone from A&! can come and explain how the Durst machines work. If 
> Benoit or Phil are reading this, perhaps they can help.
> 


Yes, I'm awaiting the second round of test negs from A&I Digital as we 
speak, so to say.  They have 2 Lightjets, one brand new, which is 
similar to the Lambda in that it uses lasers to expose the media.  I'm 
having res80 scans done from 4x5 Tmax 100, which already look 
impressive onscreen and when printed to Piezo.  They are as sharp as 
the originals and with a little unsharp masking, look even better. 
Signal to noise is good, they sharpen well, and overall have an 
extremely fine quality about them. Shadow detail was _remarkably_ 
enhanced and I can recognize grain clouds that are almost identical to 
those in the original neg. Of course piezos at 8x10 or 11x14 look 
really fantastic, but I'm looking at how they play at 24x30 
magnification, which is my favorite print size. I do print to 32x40 and 
want any negs produced to hold up to the image quality of the originals 
at that size as well, so its a pretty rigorous standard I'm seeking 
here. I've expected this to take numerous tests, and that was confirmed 
by A&I from the outset.  They say that it takes them a little time to 
key in on an individual's silver printing setup.  Mine is a Durst L1200 
with color head (diffusion) printing onto Ilford MG IV fiberbase with 
Ilford MG developer/selenium toner.

Have already seen one round of negs, which were a little soft compared 
to both the original and the actual scan they were shot from, but A&I 
seemed to think it was a case of the film perhaps on being flat in the 
carrier rather than an indication of the limit to the Lightjet's 
ability to render image information on film, and are redoing the 
output.

Will let everyone know as soon as I see and print the next round.

Phil
http://philbard.com

Phil,

Sounds really interesting and I have a bunch of questions for you.

Does A&I Digital have a website?
What size are the negs you are currently getting from them?
Do you foresee a workflow of scan to Photoshop to inkjet work print 
to transfer curve to LVT?
Since the finished product will be a silver print, would using one of 
the dye ink set for the inkjet work prints be closer to the silver 
print?

I will be eagerly awaiting updates on this as you can post them.

By the way I enjoyed your website portfolio very much. The hikers 
under the arch is wonderful. I hope to get an opportunity to see the 
original prints sometime.

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> 
> > From what I hear, the same applies to a competing technology, 
sold by Durst 
> > as the Lamda and related line of printers. They work by RGB 
lasers and can 
> > take bw neg film. But I will let others who know more fill us in 
on that. Maybe 
> > someone from A&! can come and explain how the Durst machines 
work. If 
> > Benoit or Phil are reading this, perhaps they can help.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm awaiting the second round of test negs from A&I Digital as 
we 
> speak, so to say.  They have 2 Lightjets, one brand new, which is 
> similar to the Lambda in that it uses lasers to expose the media.  
I'm 
> having res80 scans done from 4x5 Tmax 100, which already look 
> impressive onscreen and when printed to Piezo.  They are as sharp 
as 
> the originals and with a little unsharp masking, look even better. 
> Signal to noise is good, they sharpen well, and overall have an 
> extremely fine quality about them. Shadow detail was _remarkably_ 
> enhanced and I can recognize grain clouds that are almost identical 
to 
> those in the original neg. Of course piezos at 8x10 or 11x14 look 
> really fantastic, but I'm looking at how they play at 24x30 
> magnification, which is my favorite print size. I do print to 32x40 
and 
> want any negs produced to hold up to the image quality of the 
originals 
> at that size as well, so its a pretty rigorous standard I'm seeking 
> here. I've expected this to take numerous tests, and that was 
confirmed 
> by A&I from the outset.  They say that it takes them a little time 
to 
> key in on an individual's silver printing setup.  Mine is a Durst 
L1200 
> with color head (diffusion) printing onto Ilford MG IV fiberbase 
with 
> Ilford MG developer/selenium toner.
> 
> Have already seen one round of negs, which were a little soft 
compared 
> to both the original and the actual scan they were shot from, but 
A&I 
> seemed to think it was a case of the film perhaps on being flat in 
the 

> carrier rather than an indication of the limit to the Lightjet's 
> ability to render image information on film, and are redoing the 
> output.
> 
> Will let everyone know as soon as I see and print the next round.
> 
> Phil
> http://philbard.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., antonisphoto@y... wrote:

(snip earlier)

> There is another line of technology that Martin mentioned, based on 
a CRT 
> tube. These are the so called film recorders which are used in 
applications 
> that are not as critical - such as presentation slides etc. I also 
don't know how 
> far along they have come, but none of the high-end labs, that I 
know, use 
> them. Because they are the most affordable (but not cheap!), they 
can be very 
> useful for duping, stock portfolios etc. I don't have much 
experience with them 
> though.

The film recorders, as I understand them, display the file on small 
high precision monitor which is then photographed. Different film 
backs can be used to accommodate a wide range of formats. However 
they all have the same resolution as the internal display.

On the Polaroid 8000 series (~$12,000) the resolution of the image is 
approximately 8000 lines by 6000 lines which is probably not 
sufficient for "fine art" applications at anything other than rather 
small print sizes.

Martin

(snip)

Martin et al:

I've just posted some visuals for you on my website at the following 
address:

http://philbard.com/tests.html

It shows what I have so far, which is lacking a successful film output, 
but that will come in a day or two as just confirmed by phone with Chip 
at A&I.  I will post further results as they come in.  Hope this is 
more informative that just a written description.

Thanks for the comments on my site, Martin.  A&I has a site at:

http://www.AandI.com

You will find complete information on the services they offer, see the 
Digital Services listings.  I used this lab for years for E6 processing 
when I ran a full studio over in Hollywood and they are extremely 
reliable and quality-conscious.  They have one of the finest 
reputations in LA among pro shooters.

I will be receiving 4x5 negs (from 4x5 originals) if the LightJet can 
output sufficient quality at that size, which they indicate it can. If 
I have to go to 8x10 it will cost more, but that's still an option.  I 
will have to output at that size for the images I originally shot on 
8x10 anyways, but it's easier if I only have to print 4x5's.

Anticipated workflow is: Scan to file; contrast/burn/dodge/sharpen in 
PhotoShop; move in a bunch of clouds and birds and scantily clad young 
ladies (just kidding and no offense anyone); output film on the 
LightJet; print silver in my darkroom OR create Piezo's on my 1160 
(directly from the scans of course). As far as the dye inksets are 
concerned, I'm not that deeply experienced with the archival varients, 
perhaps someone else could comment. I'm already happy with the few 
great looking Piezographs I've made so far.  If only I had a 7000...

The real trick here with the Lightjet output will be getting the 
dynamic range transferred to the output neg in a manner that doesn't 
require a significant upgrade to the contrast when I'm exposing on my 
enlarger.  It would be nice to print at Grade 2 or 3.  Remains to be 
seen.

Cheers,
Phil
http://philbard.com


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

> Phil,
> 
> Sounds really interesting and I have a bunch of questions for you.
> 
> Does A&I Digital have a website?
> What size are the negs you are currently getting from them?
> Do you foresee a workflow of scan to Photoshop to inkjet work print 
> to transfer curve to LVT?
> Since the finished product will be a silver print, would using one of 
> the dye ink set for the inkjet work prints be closer to the silver 
> print?
> 
> I will be eagerly awaiting updates on this as you can post them.
> 
> By the way I enjoyed your website portfolio very much. The hikers 
> under the arch is wonderful. I hope to get an opportunity to see the 
> original prints sometime.
> 
> Martin Wesley

Phil,

This gets more interesting all the time. I just might have to chase 
the spiders out of my enlarger.

I am not surprised that the scan is sharper than the silver print. 
There was a recent letter in a photo magazine (that I can dig out if 
you are interested) regarding the resolving power of silver paper. 
Contact printing a test target the author achieved 80+ lines per mm. 
When he put the target in his enlarger and did a 1-to-1 print the 
resolution dropped to 20.

As you say the real deciding point will be if the dynamic range is 
preserved. Pushing up paper grade to save a soft neg is rarely 
satisfying.

Are the negatives output onto a true B&W emulsion or do they use the 
color transparency material?

I develop in pyro, either PMK or my own formula. It would be 
interesting to scan in RGB and preserve the pyro stain in Photoshop 
(need to think about how to do that) and output the negative image to 
color transparency material keeping the yellow/green negative stain 
to print with.

Lots to think about.

Thanks,
Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Martin et al:
> 
> I've just posted some visuals for you on my website at the 
following 
> address:
> 
> http://philbard.com/tests.html
> 
> It shows what I have so far, which is lacking a successful film 
output, 
> but that will come in a day or two as just confirmed by phone with 
Chip 
> at A&I.  I will post further results as they come in.  Hope this is 
> more informative that just a written description.
> 
> Thanks for the comments on my site, Martin.  A&I has a site at:
> 
> http://www.AandI.com
> 
> You will find complete information on the services they offer, see 
the 
> Digital Services listings.  I used this lab for years for E6 
processing 
> when I ran a full studio over in Hollywood and they are extremely 
> reliable and quality-conscious.  They have one of the finest 
> reputations in LA among pro shooters.
> 
> I will be receiving 4x5 negs (from 4x5 originals) if the LightJet 
can 
> output sufficient quality at that size, which they indicate it can. 
If 
> I have to go to 8x10 it will cost more, but that's still an 
option.  I 
> will have to output at that size for the images I originally shot 
on 
> 8x10 anyways, but it's easier if I only have to print 4x5's.
> 
> Anticipated workflow is: Scan to file; contrast/burn/dodge/sharpen 
in 
> PhotoShop; move in a bunch of clouds and birds and scantily clad 
young 
> ladies (just kidding and no offense anyone); output film on the 
> LightJet; print silver in my darkroom OR create Piezo's on my 1160 
> (directly from the scans of course). As far as the dye inksets are 
> concerned, I'm not that deeply experienced with the archival 
varients, 
> perhaps someone else could comment. I'm already happy with the few 
> great looking Piezographs I've made so far.  If only I had a 7000...
> 
> The real trick here with the Lightjet output will be getting the 
> dynamic range transferred to the output neg in a manner that 
doesn't 
> require a significant upgrade to the contrast when I'm exposing on 
my 
> enlarger.  It would be nice to print at Grade 2 or 3.  Remains to 
be 
> seen.
> 
> Cheers,
> Phil
> http://philbard.com
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., mwesley250@e... wrote:
> > Phil,
> > 
> > Sounds really interesting and I have a bunch of questions for you.
> > 
> > Does A&I Digital have a website?
> > What size are the negs you are currently getting from them?
> > Do you foresee a workflow of scan to Photoshop to inkjet work 
print 
> > to transfer curve to LVT?
> > Since the finished product will be a silver print, would using 
one of 
> > the dye ink set for the inkjet work prints be closer to the 
silver 
> > print?
> > 
> > I will be eagerly awaiting updates on this as you can post them.
> > 
> > By the way I enjoyed your website portfolio very much. The hikers 
> > under the arch is wonderful. I hope to get an opportunity to see 
the 

> > original prints sometime.
> > 
> > Martin Wesley

Martin,

That resolving power test is sobering, although I don't feel I lose 
that much, as I get very sharp grain in 16x20 prints off of 4x5, so I 
can't be losing too much.  Much has to do with the lens and light 
source of course.  But scans will be sharper.

Negs are on true B&W, probably Techpan or TMax, I hear. While you could 
always output to transparency stock for your pyro, you might have some 
difficulty with sharpness if that's critical since transparency stock 
is quite thick compared to B&W. Color neg is another possibility.

Phil
http://philbard.com

> This gets more interesting all the time. I just might have to chase 
> the spiders out of my enlarger.
> 
> I am not surprised that the scan is sharper than the silver print. 
> There was a recent letter in a photo magazine (that I can dig out if 
> you are interested) regarding the resolving power of silver paper. 
> Contact printing a test target the author achieved 80+ lines per mm. 
> When he put the target in his enlarger and did a 1-to-1 print the 
> resolution dropped to 20.
> 
> As you say the real deciding point will be if the dynamic range is 
> preserved. Pushing up paper grade to save a soft neg is rarely 
> satisfying.
> 
> Are the negatives output onto a true B&W emulsion or do they use the 
> color transparency material?
> 
> I develop in pyro, either PMK or my own formula. It would be 
> interesting to scan in RGB and preserve the pyro stain in Photoshop 
> (need to think about how to do that) and output the negative image to 
> color transparency material keeping the yellow/green negative stain 
> to print with.
> 
> Lots to think about.

Phil,

were the prints you have seen at A&I from the Lightjet silver gelatin bw prints 
or RC - or color? 

From what I know you cannot use silver fiber paper in these systems - which 
would be the main reason to go to the neg and print in the darkroom with the 
attendant reduction in resolution.


Antonis

Antonis,

What I saw were color only, and they were definitely RC. They run it 
through their wide format autoprocessors.  I suppose I should ask Chip 
directly about the fiber based since I'm not 100% sure on that.  Will 
check...

Phil
http://philbard.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., antonisphoto@y... wrote:

> Phil,
> 
> were the prints you have seen at A&I from the Lightjet silver gelatin bw prints 
> or RC - or color? 
> 
> From what I know you cannot use silver fiber paper in these systems - which 
> would be the main reason to go to the neg and print in the darkroom with the 
> attendant reduction in resolution.
> 
> 
> Antonis