I am interested in moving to digital negatives for platinum and palladium printing.
Can anyone recommend a good printer currently available for printing up to A3 digital negatives?
Thanks
Printable View
I am interested in moving to digital negatives for platinum and palladium printing.
Can anyone recommend a good printer currently available for printing up to A3 digital negatives?
Thanks
P700 and http://www.easydigitalnegatives.com/
I've used both Epson and Canon printers for contact negatives for alt processes, and I've found Canon to be more reliable, especially if it ever sits for a few weeks unused. Much less issues with clogs than the Epsons, which would clog all the time and waste lots of ink generally. Regarding finished image quality, they're on par with each other, even comparing a high end Epson to a low end Canon, I was getting siderotype prints of consistent quality in any case. It's all about finding the best settings for your given printer, and then you'll get a good negative. I've even made nice gum prints from junky laser printer negatives on vellum! Technique and experience is key. But when it comes to long term reliability, my money is on Canon.
How are you calibrating negs for use on the Canon.??
Interestingly enough, I've had completely opposite experiences with Canon and Epson printers. My Epson R3000 (albeit a larger format printer than the Canons I have used) hardly clogs and remains unused for weeks at a time, since I mostly use it to make black and white contact sheets and the occasional color print. The Epson also has 4 black inks, so it might make better negatives--I have yet to try it.Quote:
Originally Posted by martiansea
A long while back, Epson 3800 and 3880 were excellent printers for digital negatives. Other printers of that era were not so good, because printing artifacts could be seen in continuous tone areas of an image. (For example, like nudes.) I'm thinking of Epson 4000, 9600, etc.
And, neither the 3800 nor the 3880 were cloggers. I have a 3880, and it's quite the opposite.
So, maybe the artifacts I describe are ancient history. But if I were looking for a printer for digital negatives, I would want to make sure. I used to have a 4000, and it was really obvious.
The last batch I made I used Chart Throb, because I wanted to try it out. Previous to trying that, I used the method promoted by Christina Z. Anderson, which I think Chart Throb is derived from.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob carnie
Here is an example of an 8x10 Argyrotype I made using a Chart Throb calibration with an inexpensive Canon printer (MP620). The negative was printed on Inkpress OHP film. I'm very satisfied with the results:
https://i2.wp.com/entropyandchaos.co...cientOakSm.jpg
Some Canon printers use dye based inks and some pigment. Which is better for alt processes?
It doesn't much matter, in my experience. The negative for the above image was printed on a printer that uses dye based inks. It obviously came out fine. When I was in grad school using large Epsons, those were all pigment based. Apples and oranges to me. If you know how to use the printer and take the time to figure out calibration given its characteristics, you can make a good negative with nearly any reasonable quality printer. The main advantage of pigment based inks is the archival resilience of colors, which doesn't feel like much of an issue to me in the case of digital negatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Michael
In my experience if you want full control for the best possible results, best Dmax, etc, you have to go with Epson and QTR to get a calibrated, repeatable and optimized process. QTR is just not available for Canon.
The setup I used with a Canon and dye based inks was more than adequate to get sufficient Dmax for the highlights to be correct in the print. No worse than when I used Epsons. It's really not that hard. Inkjet printers have come a long way since 2003...
I will try this tonight. I'm very attracted to the feature of making LUTs for use with Affinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by keeds
It all depends on what sufficient is and what Alt processes we are talking about. For example, not many people I know do carbon prints with Canon’s. Just see carbon@groups.io, this question gets asked about 3 times a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by martiansea
Having not bought a printer yet, I worry about how much longer QTR will be supported or work with new Epson models.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi7475
This is the million dollar question..... I have been using QTR with an Epson 7800 for years now and love the results, But for my inkjet printing side of the business I have a Canon which I like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael R
Richard Boutwell has apparently developed a system for working on any printer which I am going to try out this fall, I switched to his system to make negs using QTR this past winter and have good profiles
but like Michael points out how long will this last. In a perfect world for me at least I need to buy a 44 inch machine that can produce the same quality prints I am currently making on my older Canon and as well
produce the same quality negatives that I am currently getting with my older Epson set up.
I would love to see a 100 step chart posted rather than the Tree image so I could see how well chart throb has actually reproduced each LAB values, the image does not really tell me much.
I had Ron Reeder visit my shop a couple of times to set up my system using the Harrington Reeder QTR system, sadly Ron passed away or I am sure he would have the answer to Michaels question
I should point out that I am not very good with calibration, kind of Deer in Headlight syndrome, but I have young friends that are very adapt. I just happen to know what a good negative should look like.
Thanks for the insight, Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob carnie
Having been 100% darkroom forever, since I’m new to the “hybrid” workflow and haven’t bought any of the equipment yet I’ve just been trying to learn as much as I can about the various parts of the process and I’m sort of in my typical “analysis paralysis” holding pattern at the moment because the longevity of each of the pieces worries me.
So far, like many/most people (I presume ?) I’ve been leaning down the Epson path for a variety of reasons but they are probably all just a matter of opinion. Most of the high quality work I’ve been exposed to (prints and negatives) just happens to be based around QTR/Epson so that is what I’m most familiar with so far including Reeder/Boutwell (I’ve found Bill Schwab’s recent YouTube series on digital negs to be a nice introductory overview to QTR, calibration etc.). I’ve also looked into Piezography/profiles.
Since the various pieces of this puzzle (software, drivers, whatever) are the products of small or one-man operations, who knows.
Perhaps I’m overthinking and I just need to jump in. Don’t know.
There are other such powerful, customizable RIPs/curve-building things out there which I think are not Epson-exclusive, which might be worth exploring for Canon or HP. However you probably have to be more of a wiz with the software to get them working rather than having the head start out-of-the-box stuff for QTR.
I’m still a digital novice or not even novice so apologies if anything I’ve written is dumb.
My experience is with Epson printers and various BW inksets, MIS, Cone.....Richard Boutwell's system is excellent. Piezography can work very well...when they are working. Maybe I've been unlucky....but these systems rarely stay working for me, and that involves about 8 printers. I've tried a lot of different techniques, wet sponges in printer during storage, covering the printer with plastic, running automated prints, loading cleaning carts with Piezo flush.....none of this has prevented serious nozzle clogs in fairly short order, sometimes with only a day between a perfectly working system and a huge problem.
Awhile ago, I taught at a university that had a large BW printing lab using Piezography. There were about 20 printers, and the professor in charge was extremely experienced. When I ran test prints in preparation to do some personal printing, every single machine had problems. Every single one. Printing a simple step wedge clearly demonstrated this.
Another example, I have an Epson 4880 that I bought new. It has only had official Cone inks and cartridge's. I spent a week setting up Richard's system....all good. It printed fine for a week. A week! I printed every day. It didn't sit. And it developed two massively clogged channels, which even Piezoflush in cleaning cartridges couldn't fix.
The loss of money, time and patience, for me, is massive. I'm hugely reluctant to try inkjet printing again.
Perhaps I'm unlucky. Maybe there's a large variation in the quality of printer heads...I don't know. I'd like to eventually printing ditital negatives. If a dye printer could give good results with the processes I'd use, I'd be strongly inclined to try one.
OK, I had only made a Chart Throb curve for Argyrotype, and I had subsequently stopped using Photoshop in favor of Affinity and PhotoLab, so can't make any new Chart Throb curves to try.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob carnie
Fortunately, Affinity was able to open my old PS file of that tree and export the correction curve as an LUT (just figured out I could do this; lifesaver!). So, I can print up a step chart with that Chart Throb curve applied and make a print to see how it looks; have all the fixins for making Argyrotype on-hand, so that no issue. I'm in the midst of trying out Easy Digital Negatives, and so far the results look very promising, so I shall make a competing Argyrotype curve with that to compare it to Chart Throb.
I’ve heard some other similar horror stories.
From a tone reproduction perspective regarding digital negatives specifically (ie not prints), Piezography might be overkill and not worth the potential trouble - not to mention whether or not it will even work with the next generation of Epson printers.
For example, in the intro/demo series Bill Schwab did on digital negatives with QTR/Epson, his personal take is that the OEM Epson inkset works just as well.
I don’t understand the ins and outs of how Piezography apparently gets double the resolution (?) out of an Epson printer. If that is the case, maybe there might be some possible benefit for certain types of digital negatives depending on what kind of paper you end up doing your contact prints on or something, but maybe it doesn’t matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
Could you tell me how to do this, as I’m currently using Affinity and it’s quite difficult to create this.Quote:
Originally Posted by martiansea
I have several images that have a ‘correct’ adjustment created in Photoshop, the corrections are in a separate curves layer
When I want a Digi Print any size, I use 2 different printers, one for smaller B&W and one for large color
They both mount
I am ordering 36X48" mounted shortly, the biggest they will ship flat
I wasted too much $$$ not doing this
I will not recomend any printer or print maker
One very good printer is a member here
I don't mind mentioning people. Ken Lee's digital scanning/processing/printing looks excellent to me. He's one of the people who's work has sparked my interest in digital/hybrid techniques as a complement to darkroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
Ken Lee is amazing and very generous with his website
What I meant is, I am not interested in hybred work
I do one or the other, 100% Digi or 100% wet work
I like both, differently
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael R
Much identical here.
Having owned-used an Epson 4990 sheet film scanner and related software for over a decade has been met with an Meh... and time waste dump with Meh results. These days, this set up is used to share quickiee sheet film scans via web post.
Canon Digital does a better 100% digital than hybrid for the image making needs of digital images.
Sinar and all related does great for 100% wet-analog results.
All B&W these days as the ability to do GOOD color evaporated about 2000 when the high quality color print resources disappeared.
Every so often stop by Bear Images to take in the "latest and greatest" in digital.. still come up with Meh...
https://www.bearimages.com/Bear_Imag...nc./Store.html
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
Open the PS file with Affinity. Then turn off any layers you don't want included in the LUT, ie; if you have levels and curves layers, but only want the curves, turn off the levels. It doesn't seem to make a difference whether the background pixel layer is on or off, but I turned that off too. Then go to File -> Export LUT and this creates the LUT file. On the Export LUT screen that appears, I turned the "Quality" up all the way to the maximum of 126 x 126 x 126 - I am assuming this gives the most accurate rendition of the original curve, but maybe it doesn't need to be so large. I got .cube files that were over 50MB with this setting, maybe this is excessive and a smaller size is adequate; something to experiment with.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickMarq
When you want to apply the curve to a new Affinity file you're working on, choose LUT for the adjustment layer, and on the window that pops up, load the .cube file that was made for that curve. I found the big .cube files are a bit slow to load, but they look identical to the original curve, so I can't complain! Again, I suggest maybe smaller .cube files are adequate. You can also import the different .cube curves into the Adjustment menu under the LUT category, so it will be easily at-hand.
I just discovered all this wonder about LUTs yesterday when trying out Easy Digital Negatives. I am hooked; this is an awesome way to bring all our methods into the 21st century.
Same here. Have had a 4990 since it just entered the market; the positive side is that it has always worked. The negative side is that it does age in the sense of outgassing of materials used etc. Its scans are OK - but not more than that. I'd much prefer printing all wet/darkroom. Nicer experience, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernice Loui
Same with inkjet for alt processes, i.e. digital negatives. I spent many weeks working on calibrations for cyanotype, Van Dyke, photopolymer intaglio and carbon transfer. Made hundreds upon hundreds of prints from negatives created by an Epson 3880 combined with Cone inks (not piezography btw, his regular expanded CMYK set). With cyanotype, the results were OK - but on close inspection with a loupe the inkjet dots are very visible. Same with photopolymer; the printing process outresolves the digital negatives by a huge margin. But the main problem was with processes like Van Dyke, salted paper and carbon transfer. I found no way whatsoever to get the required density/tonal scale from an inkjet negative to make acceptable (to my eyes) prints with these techniques. Yes, I got images, and they sort of looked nice, but they literally pale besides prints made from real, silver-based negatives.
For me, digital negatives were a nice way to ease into alt. process printing and I learned a lot doing it that way. The move to film-based negatives was inevitable, though, in hindsight.
I do still use the inkjet printer. It works quite OK for making the artwork I use for PCB manufacturing. It's not great for this purpose, but just good enough.
Inkjet prints can be absolutely phenomenal. Inkjet printing is an art in itself, and I respect those who get excellent results with the medium. But for me, alt-process prints from inkjet negatives are a dead end street that I'm not going back into, ever.
Reading some negativity about the hybrid process and final prints has me a bit surprised... My experience is exactly the opposite. Using high end scanners , then. converting colour film images to 2-6 different negatives for multiple gum over palladium printing, has not only revitalized me but also accounts for 50% of my current business. I am in love with this process and feel I have never had more control over the printing process.
Spoiler Alert I still print silver negatives , I have a 11 x 14 and 5 x 7 Devere enlargers but the bulk of my silver printing these days are on Ilford Warm tone Semi matt and Ilford Art 300 paper using digital inkjet negatives. To acquire the equipment, go down the rabbit hole of exploring digital negs to print, reading as much as one can and just trying to come to an understanding on exactly how this all works took me over a 9 year journey. A well done silver , gum over palladium , gum over cyanotype can be as beautiful as one can expect, I do not equate one process as better than another but rather different. I had the chance to view a major show of prints , which included many famous images in silver, palladium, and then the hidden jewels of the show a series of images from Japan year 1879 era that were watercolour brushwork over salt prints. I would put those up against any and all types of prints and they would show well.
+10 right on.
I would add that even for printing silver negatives there are digital elements which might allow for additional creative control. I am intrigued by the potential for certain types of inkjet masks to be superior to silver masks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob carnie
Some of my favorite gum prints are from pictures I took with my phone!
Just because I've had a lot of trouble with the reliability of inkjet printing, doesn't mean that it hasn't been a godsend for others. We all have our individual (non-representative) experience, and that's great. What we can't seem to shake, though, is claiming that our subjective value judgments have more objective value than those of other people's, and that's highly questionable. "This isn't for me" is fine. "This shouldn't be for you" generally isn't. To support such a claim, you'd have to show unjustifiable harm....
When it comes to photographs, Bernice is quite right that we are drowning in them. Despite this deluge, there is a place for exquisite prints, the kind that Bob produces.
I'm kind of half way down the same rabbit hole as the op. I shoot up to 4x5 but ULF is not an option for me and since I want to explore salt printing, it seems that digital negatives are my only option for larger prints.
I bought an Epson 3880 printer with the intent of using Jon Cone's piezography ink set (which is only set up for Epson printers and replaces all the epson colour cartridges with proprietary blacks). Seems reasonable to me that the more black ink options (as with the Jon Cone piezography ink set), the better tonal range you'll achieve. My problem is that Epson has made it very difficult and time consuming to incorporate non-oem cartridges and inks and it seems that there's a lot of black magic going on to work around that. I get the feeling that I need 3 goats, a virgin and a full moon to make it work so I've not made the leap yet. The three oem blacks have been doing ok for me but I know it's not optimum.
The epson has been ok - no major plugs or problems in the six years I've had it but I do nozzle checks and matt/photo black switches weekly. Huge waste of ink and a pain in the neck but as I said, haven't had any problems. The 3880 matt and photo blacks share a nozzle so manual switching is required. Why epson thought this was ok is beyond me but seems to signify their general disregard for their users. Apparently the new printers don't have that but it appears they're also more difficult to incorporate the piezography inks into. I think the workaround has something to do with replacing a printer board so maybe I need 4 goats now. HP did this way better with their BP9180. I would really like to see one of the printer companies come up with a monochrome multi-black large format printer. Seems to me there might be a market for it.
In any event, I'm still trying to convince myself that it'll be fine and I really want to do this.
Regards
Dave
IMO, there remains a tiny audience for the expressive exquisite print, a tiny island in the ocean of nearly 4 Billion images and 750,000 hours of video uploaded to the internet daily. Consider the energy required to do this and data storage demands.
There was a time when Long time Foto and music friend Tim Hall owner-operator of Color Three Lab in SF was running about 1.5 miles of Kodak color paper in and out of their lab daily. Many of these HUGE color "C" prints went on bill boards across the nation. Vast majority of them ended up in the land fill.
What once was physical visual media has become virtual visual media.
The current revival of alternative process image making could be a reaction to the "ocean" of these images.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
Nicely put Bernice - a very large job for me these days is making 12 - Tri colour over palladium , this takes me days to produce and believe me they are not cheap, but every print I do in silver and alternative is for collectors and I do not think they make the landfill, but in the past I too have made hundreds of thousands of C prints that made it to that location. I decided not to do this anymore and got rid of all my auto processors and decided to make permanent prints and even more shocking make a living doing it as well.
The lockdown has been a revelation for me and through the internet people find me and request these types of prints that I gladly will do for them.
Bob makes a point that should not be ignored. Making any kind of print with alternative methods nearly always requires a lot of skill with the process. Making a high quality color gum over palladium print, or a great albumen print, or great carbon print requires mastery of the process. Bob is a master printer and has made great silver gelatin prints in the darkroom, even very large ones, as well as beautiful color prints with a Lambda, and now makes outstanding gum and gum/over prints with a hybrid methodology. Making virtually any kind of print with hybrid methodology is done primarily in process, not in the monitor and in making the negative, and a great printer like Bob is able to make great prints because of his printing skills, not his mastery of making digital negatives. Many people can make outstanding monochrome prints with hybrid methodology with either Canon or Epson printers, and making a great negative from those printers requires only a bit more skill. But the rubber hits the road when comes to making a great alternative print, including silver gelatin prints, with those negatives. Most really good alternative printers are able to make great prints with hybrid methodology and digital negatives because of their process skill, not because of the negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob carnie
Sandy
Yes, I agree, Bob, Sandy, Bernice and many more are experts at making excellent prints
However we idiot amateurs grease the stone of commerce
as for our new expert, I am desperately trying to stoke the coal for this website to survive
soon the engine will roll down the hill backwards
the barbarians are hungry
toss them a tin can
Kiwi7475 said it all https://groups.io/g/QuadToneRIP. Lots of people making digital negatives offering insights.
Just one additional input about printers.
I have not used it for negatives to be used in alternative processes but my Epson
P800 has been 100% reliable for 3 years although I only print very occasionally.
I use Imageprint Black as a RIP and the prints are simply top notch. It’s incredibly eash to get exhibition grade prints on a variety of papers.