Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Coast BC
    Posts
    37

    Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    What would you do if you were in my shoes?

    I want to make enlarged digital negatives from 4x5's for platinum toned Kallitypes.
    I live 1000 Kilometres (2000km round trip) by road from an Epson technician.
    If anything goes wrong with Epson's piezo head, I'm screwed.
    Epson's newer printers are problematic with Piezography inks.
    Pretty risky getting a refurbished 3880 being so far from a technician.
    According to Piezography, their negatives hold more detail than a Kallitype will reveal anyways.
    Could an Epson P800 with OEM inks produce negatives more detailed than a Kallitype will reveal?
    P800 could do double duty for my wife's colour wildlife photographs.
    P800 could do 16x__ panoramic prints.
    Then again, if anything goes wrong with the piezo head...
    Canon's Prograf 1000 thermal head can be easily worked on or replaced.
    The Prograf 1000 produces less fine detail, but will that be evident in a Kallitype?
    Prograf 1000 cannot do 16x__ panoramic prints.
    Prograf 1000 could do double duty for my wife's colour wildlife photographs.

    I'm at the bottom of the learning curve on this digital stuff, so your insights will be most appreciated!

    Murray

  2. #2
    Les
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    751

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    Have you considered the work done elsewhere ? I mean vs printing at your place. Perhaps Bob or Sandy will answer your querry. I don't think Whitehorse or Carcross (he he) would have anything that you might need. Good luck.

    Les

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Coast BC
    Posts
    37

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Vogt View Post
    Have you considered the work done elsewhere ? I mean vs printing at your place. Perhaps Bob or Sandy will answer your querry. I don't think Whitehorse or Carcross (he he) would have anything that you might need. Good luck.

    Les
    Hi Les,

    Going north from here might be a great idea for photographing, but Epson technicians would be locally extinct.

    Nope...don't want somebody else printing my stuff!!!!

    The detail loving large format photographer in me is leaning towards the Epson piezo head and Piezography inks. According to the Piezography website it can produce negatives with detail beyond a platinum prints (or Kallitype I'm guessing) capacity to hold that detail. I like that; the enlarged negative would not be leaving 'artifacts' in the finished work. Makes me n-n-nervous though, being so far away from a technician with refurbished equipment.

    I'd consider a P800 with OEM inks if it could also produce enlarged negatives with detail beyond a Kallitypes ability to reveal that detail. This would beg the question...how long (or how many prints) does an Epson printer typically last if maintained properly? If long enough, and the negative quality was that good, I would consider going that way and just chucking the printer when the time comes.

    On the other hand, if a Prograf 1000 would get the job done without "too many artifacts" being left behind on the Kallitype I could go that way as well, as long as they weren't too onerous. I was seriously considering polymer photogravure, so obviously I'm willing to let a few things slide detail wise!

    Conundrum for sure...

    *EDIT* Am I missing other viable printer options for 16x20 digital negatives???

  4. #4

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    Apparently the HP z3200 printer can be used to print digital negatives. I have not done this so I cannot comment on the quality of the results. I have not had time to trace the links for this but a Google search brought up a number of links.

    I bought my z3200 in 2009 and just recently in 2017 did a full head set replacement. It was easy to do and not all that expensive. Prior to that I'd had two heads fail. I've also replaced the fan, main drive belt and upper carriage bearing and I've cleaned the print-head service station. The service manual is on line and a number of users have posted valuable YouTube videos or web pages about servicing the z3200. A level of technical adeptness and confidence is needed to service the printer, but the information is out there and parts seem to be readily available.

    Best with decisions about which printer to select.
    Bill

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Coast BC
    Posts
    37

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    Thanks for the tip Bill, but 16x20 is about as big as I want to go.

    Does anybody have a website link handy comparing enlarged digital negatives made from piezoelectric and thermal heads?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,170

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin View Post
    Thanks for the tip Bill, but 16x20 is about as big as I want to go.

    Does anybody have a website link handy comparing enlarged digital negatives made from piezoelectric and thermal heads?
    Murray

    In terms of image quality I am fairly certain that you could not find any significant difference between digital negatives made with Epson, HP, or Canon ink jet prints. Also, I don't believe you would see much difference in image quality with kallitype and pt/pd comparing digital negatives made with QTR and the Epson OEM K3 inks to those made with PiezoDN. The reason in both cases is that the limiting factor is more likely to be the paper itself than the negative.

    My advice to most people would be go with an Epson printer because the overwhelming majority of people making digital negatives are using Epson printers for making digital negatives, and there would be a lot of support from users available to you on the web. There may be some support from Canon and HP users, but very little compared to Epson. Also, with Epson printers you can use the QuadToneRIP driver, which gives you great control over process in making digital negatives, either with the Epson OEM inks or with PiezoDN.

    But I don't live 1000 miles from an Epson service center. In fact, there is one only about 30 minutes from my house, and a nice drive at that up the mountain toward Asheville, North Carolina. On the other hand, it does not seem to me, on balance, that users experience more problem with Epson printers than with Canon or HP printers. Yes, nozzle clogging can be an issue if you live in an area where the RH is very low. I never have nozzle clogs with Epson printers, but I live in a part of the world that is close to ideal for for piezoelectric head of the Epson printers. What are your RH conditions like in BC?

    Sandy
    http://www.sandykingphotography.com/
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at Yahoo.
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...nTransfer/info

  7. #7
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    3,998

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    Murray - Sandy pretty much says it all, I would stick with Epson for his reasons and as well most important is keeping the RH up so the nossel supply lines do not dry out. I use an Epson 7800 and to date have had no issues.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,171

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    I'm not sure if my reply will be all that helpful, but feel free to ignore it.

    You seem to be concerned primarily with detail. That's fair and I recognize it. However, what Sandy says aligns with my (more limited) experience: the print head and/or inks used are just one step in the imaging chain and other steps tend to have a profound impact as well. The issue of paper/surface (and sizing) is a huge one: don't expect to print kallitypes with extremely fine detail on coarse or quasi-fine 'art' papers - you need a pretty flat and smooth paper surface for that. Other issues such as the light source in combination with the quality of your contact printing frame play a role as well. Having said that, in my experiences, alt processes such as Van Dyke, Cyanotype, carbon transfer and yes, even photopolymer are capable of resolving detail that is much finer than any inket printer can achieve. In other words: whatever fancy print head you get your hands on, if your printer prints dots, you will be able to see the individual dots with a loupe in your kallitypes - provided you use a decent printing frame and a fairly smooth paper.

    This then is also the reason why, after messing about with digital negatives for several months, I gave up on digital negatives for silver- and iron-based alt processes and carbon transfer. Sure, fiddling with curves allowed me to consistently produce acceptable prints. Tonal transitions were by and large smooth enough not to swap the regular inkset of my 3880 for a Piezo set. With a little tweaking elsewhere in the process, the covering power of the standard inks (as well as Jon Cone's color inkset) was sufficient - although not ideal. But in the end, the pizza wheel and roller marks drove me nuts, and the regular dither patterns in light areas (dark areas in the negative) proved impossible for me to escape entirely - they kept emerging here and there. In the end, I grew tired of looking for workarounds to make my Epson do something it was never intended to do.

    I still like my old 3880 (a second-hand purchase) for the prints it makes and its ease of use. It has never given me any trouble other than the trouble I looked for myself by printing on unsupported media (read: transparencies).

    As for alt process prints: 4x5" contacts are quite gorgeous. And if they need to be larger, I just accept that I have to haul an 8x10" camera around.

    I'm not saying the digital negative route doesn't work. Evidently it does - people like Sandy have shown more perseverance (and likely more financial spending power) to get this to work really well. Neither do I want to discourage you from this approach and yes, I understand that an 8x10" camera is likely not the 'solution' you're looking for. However, consider the following:
    * Print head resolution is just one factor and probably the least of your worries if you take the entire workflow into account. The inks play only a limited role in the resolution game; the media you print on is a much more significant factor (in practice, dot gain/bleed is determined more by media than by inks used).
    * Resolution is just...resolution. If you print big, you're not going to admire those prints with a loupe all the time anyway. Yeah, crappy argument, but people have lost their minds chasing micrometer resolution. Look in the Lounge for a recent example.
    * Be prepared to deal with issues that you hadn't even dreamed of when going the digital negative route. Pizza wheel marks, roller marks, streaking, clogged nozzles, ink behaving weirdly when laid down heavier than anticipated by engineers, insufficient covering power, endlessly mucking about with curves, infuriating behavior of print drivers, and God knows what else you may experience (everything I mentioned I have personally run into at some point down the road). And no, I don't think the Epsons are inherently worse than any other brand. Inket printers are delicate, complex machines that we expect to work reliably and with very little maintenance under a wide range of conditions and in our case, for purposes they weren't designed for while pushing their performance limits.
    * I find that inkjet transparencies are surprisingly apt at attracting any dust and debris that happens to be in a 100-mile radius. Inks (that were designed not to dry out!) tend to remain tacky practically for eternity and any dust or debris that hits the image side of your negative will stay there. Since these inks never fully dry out (and if they do, they remain quite soft), the image is damaged if you so much as glance at it. A regular negative is about as delicate as a reinforced concrete wall in comparison with a digital negative.

    If there's any chance of doing so, consider visiting someone or doing a workshop on alt process printing with digital negatives to get a feel for how it works in practice. The above sounds like a horror story, but I sure had a lot of fun with digital negatives as well, even though the technical quality of my prints improved by an order of magnitude when I ditched them for silver negatives (particularly with processes requiring a long tonal scale).

    And finally, make sure that with your printer, you order the complementary bucket of painkillers for your inevitable headaches, ask if the service contract also covers therapy to deal with anger and frustration and ensure that there's an outlet for strong liquor in your neighborhood.

  9. #9
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    3,998

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    Murray I make silver negatives from digital files up to 18 x 40 inches , not cheap but good for what you need to do.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,170

    Re: Piezo/Thermal Head Conundrum

    There is a huge divide between merely doing something, and doing something well. In the book on carbon printing that John Lockhart and I recently published, we wrote the following in the introduction to digital negative methodology.

    Making a good digital negative is a lot more complicated than just converting a color file to B&W, inverting and printing on a piece of transparency material. In nearly all cases this procedure will result in a negative is unsuitable for carbon because the density range is too low or too high, or the negative is not linearized, or both. Regardless of which methodology you choose for making digital negatives it will ultimately involve a fair amount of experimentation to make high quality negatives that produce the best carbon prints possible.
    Excerpt From: Sandy King, John Lockhart. “The Carbon Print.” iBooks.


    I can understand Koraks frustrations with making digital negatives as I have experienced them myself at one time or another. But every one of the problems he mentions has a solution, and the solution is usually identified through sound problem solving, not by throwing money at the problem. And in fact, the solutions to all of the problems he mentions have been identified and discussed in the literature. The printer I use for making digital negatives is an Epson 7800, now more than a decade old, that I bought some five or so years ago for $500. I paid for it by selling an Epson 3880 on ebay. With the 7800, and the QTR profiles I use for printing digital negatives, there are no pizza wheel marks, no dithering in the highlights, and no lack of tones in the highlights. There are also two viable methods for avoiding pizza wheel marks with the 3880 for those who prefer to work with this machine, and with either method the 3880 is capable of beautiful and smooth digital negatives.

    As for image quality, there are always pros and cons when comparing printing systems. For my thoughts I will refer you to a response I made to this issue for an article on my work published in Issue #15 of Looking Glass magazine. Check it out, some good work here. http://lookingglasszine.com

    QUESTION from David Roberts

    Technological innovation touches all corners of photography today and you are progressive in your approach to historical processes. What, if any, differences do you find in final carbon transfer prints: a) produced from film capture v. digital sensors, and/or, b) in camera film negatives v. digital negatives drawn from film negatives?

    ANSWER by Sandy King

    For many years I printed in carbon transfer directly from large format and ultra large format negatives. Large negatives are in some ways ideal for contact printing, if exposed and developed correctly, as the results are sure to convey all of the resolution of the negative, and should be virtually grain free. Unfortunately, every negative requires some exposure or contrast control to produce a perfect print, and the process of proofing is very time consuming with a process like carbon with its many wet/dry steps.


    Around 2002 I began scanning my film negatives and outputting digital negatives on overhead transparency film with an Epson photo printer. Although the process was in the beginning quite challenging I could immediately see the potential for a significant improvement in the image quality of my work. The use of digital negatives offers several advantages for carbon printing, and for other alternative printing as well; 1) the original negative or digital image can be enlarged to virtually any size desired for the final print, 2) the density and curve of the digital negative can be tailored to precisely match the exposure scale and the specific curve requirements of the process, and 3) the image file can be altered by adjusting contrast in select areas of the image, and by local dodging and burning, so that in printing every print gets the same exposure time.
    Now some 15 years after I first started to experiment with digital negatives it is possible for me to state with absolute certainty that the use of digital controls provides a means to “craft” the look of a final print in a way that would be for all practical purposes impossible with purely analog methods.

    Comparing results of my carbon printing with digital negatives produced from film capture and digital capture is a far more complicated issue. This type of comparison must take into consideration both the type and size of film, how it is exposed and developed, and the quality of the scanner used to scan the film. With digital we must take into account the type of sensor, its resolution in megapixels, the dynamic range, and my skill in operating the camera. Unfortunately the complexity of this type of testing is such that the result often looks like comparing apples and oranges. When all is said and done it boils down to personal preference because at this point in our history it is possible to make beautiful carbon prints via digital negatives from both digital and film capture.
    Is there a particular look to the print that results from digital capture compared to film capture? I don’t find that to be the case in my own work, but it is important to note that my personal concept of image quality is based on preferences developed through a long history of the use of film with medium and large format cameras.


    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 10-Mar-2017 at 22:11.
    http://www.sandykingphotography.com/
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at Yahoo.
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...nTransfer/info

Similar Threads

  1. Tripod conundrum
    By ndavidson27 in forum Gear
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 22-Oct-2016, 22:29
  2. Air Travel Conundrum
    By djdister in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 4-Jun-2014, 09:17
  3. ULF pinhole conundrum
    By John Kasaian in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20-Jul-2009, 20:36
  4. Ebony 4x5 conundrum
    By Andrew Ito in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 26-May-2006, 06:33
  5. Camera Equipment and thermal stresses
    By Keith Baker in forum Gear
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5-Jan-2002, 19:31

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •