Carbon Transfer Prints

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi Curt, and thank you! I made this negative before I got into alternative printing, so it was not suitable for carbon. I normally work with acrylic sized art papers, but I have to tell you, fixed out photo paper results in the best smooth tones ever! Fixing out all that silver bothers me so I'm going to invest in a silver recovery system. Cheers!

[sanking]

Oh sorry, Sandy. Is this thread specifically for carbon transfer prints made with digital capture or small formats?

Good job, Andy. Nice image, and 4X5 is small format in my opinion. And the main issue here is to focus on the possibilities inherent in printing with digital negative. One could reasonably hold the opinion that whenever we print with a negative larger than 4X5 we are printing large format, regardless of the size or type of original capture.

Sandy

[ROL]

Discussions about making digital negatives would be appropriate in the Digital Processing section of this forum.

Sandy

Was I discussing that? I believe that is part of your process, mentioned in this thread. Okay, just forget the complement.

[sanking]

Was I discussing that? I believe that is part of your process, mentioned in this thread. Okay, just forget the complement.

One of the things I took from my Yoga class today was that an individual is responsible for understanding, and for making himself/herself understood.

The purpose of my comment where I suggested that discussions about digital negatives would be appropriate in the Digital Processing threads on this forum was meant to invite discussions there on this complicated subject, not to suggest that it could not be discussed in this thread, or to suggest that you were discussing it. The purpose was definitely not to criticize you for any comments you made in this thread. If I did not make myself understood I apologize and take responsibility for it.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

One of the things I took from my Yoga class today was that an individual is responsible for understanding, and for making himself/herself understood.

The purpose of my comment where I suggested that discussions about digital negatives would be appropriate in the Digital Processing threads on this forum was meant to invite discussions there on this complicated subject, not to suggest that it could not be discussed in this thread, or to suggest that you were discussing it. The purpose was definitely not to criticize you for any comments you made in this thread. If I did not make myself understood I apologize and take responsibility for it.

Sandy

Those yogi's are so wise

[Eric Rose]

Wow that Cathedral Rock print is freaking amazing!!

Eric

My intention was to post several images in this thread of recent work but the reception to the first one was so nice I fear another one will be downhill. But, the only way forward is ahead so here is another one, with a somewhat less ethereal subject.

Carbon transfer print 17" X 23" in size from a digital negative. Original was digital capture, digital negative printed with Epson 7800. Called Cathedral Rock.

BTW, the tones in the sky in this image, and in the one of the angel, are in the scene as exposed, i.e. no double exposure or combining images involved.

Sandy

[D-tach]

Indeed it is! And those waternimphs... How do you scan such big prints Sandy? Also, do you apply output sharpening for the digital negatives as you would for a regular inkjetprint?

[StoneNYC]

Indeed it is! And those waternimphs... How do you scan such big prints Sandy? Also, do you apply output sharpening for the digital negatives as you would for a regular inkjetprint?

I think he has a machine that breaks up the image into particles and simply transmits it out into cyberspace for all to see it's just that amazing

[sanking]

Indeed it is! And those waternimphs... How do you scan such big prints Sandy? Also, do you apply output sharpening for the digital negatives as you would for a regular inkjetprint?

Tom,

I don't scan carbon prints. Scanning is very complicated because of the reflective qualities of these prints. The images of the prints were taken with a digital camera. I just put the print on an easel and make the shot in soft light with a digital camera, in sRGB. The file size is actually hugely reduced, otherwise it would never load onto this forum. Sometimes I use some web output sharpness for the files. I try to adjust contrast and color of the image file to match the print.

In terms of file prep, I use just a tad more unsharp mask for making digital negatives than for printing regular inkjet prints. If I make a digital negative using the exact same preparation used for the digital inkjet print sharpness won't be quite sufficient on the carbon print. Over-sharpening is really ugly with inkjet prints, but it is quasi-magical with carbon because the effect is to increase the impression of relief. The contrast and sharpening used can make or break a carbon print, and it is very difficult to evaluate on the monitor.

Sandy

[D-tach]

Tom,

I don't scan carbon prints. Scanning is very complicated because of the reflective qualities of these prints. The images of the prints were taken with a digital camera. I just put the print on an easel and make the shot in soft light with a digital camera, in sRGB. The file size is actually hugely reduced, otherwise it would never load onto this forum. Sometimes I use some web output sharpness for the files. I try to adjust contrast and color of the image file to match the print.

In terms of file prep, I use just a tad more unsharp mask for making digital negatives than for printing regular inkjet prints. If I make a digital negative using the exact same preparation used for the digital inkjet print sharpness won't be quite sufficient on the carbon print. Over-sharpening is really ugly with inkjet prints, but it is quasi-magical with carbon because the effect is to increase the impression of relief. The contrast and sharpening used can make or break a carbon print, and it is very difficult to evaluate on the monitor.

Sandy

Interesting. Thank you for explaining Sandy!