[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Source for 1160 Printers for inkjet negatives
What paper are you using for your waxed gum neg's? I've only tried Epson
Archival Matte to date, the images were too soft for my tastes. Perhaps it
was the thickness of the paper or the mineral oil smushing the inks, dont
From: Keith Gerling [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: Source for 1160 Printers for inkjet negatives
I've used the Epson Photo EX extensively (and the 3000, but not as much) to
produce Quadtone finished prints as well as to create negatives for gum and
other alternative processes. I'm not familiar with the Cone product, but I
have spent considerable effort in perfecting curves, profiles, etc. in order
to take advantage of the MIS inks. My conclusions:
1) Incredibly detailed and subtle B&W prints can be obtained when using the
proper surfaces. We all knew that! This is off-topic for this list, and
not of any particular interest for me anyway, as my purpose was to produce
negatives for alt processes.
2) Contrary to what other people have reported, I have never been able to
produce a decent negative for use in platinum, or other one-coat metal-salt
processes. Even though the ink-on-paper performance proves the resolution
CAN be there, the surfaces, whether is be Pictorico or any number of other
obscure products, just do not produce a satisfactory negative. I've used
Dan's approach with the orange negative, I've used color, I've used MIS
inks - nothing comes close to being acceptable. For me.
3) Gum is another story. I am very pleased with the desktop negatives that
I can create for gum printing. And I've found that there are no particular
gains to be had by using Quadtone, or even Color, for that matter. Just
plain old black ink, out of one nozzle, at about 270dpi works great. Call
it a gum limitation, or call it a limitation on my own perceptual abilities,
but there just doesn't seem to be much advantage to using Quadtone inks.
Another shocking revelation: I get a better gum print when I use waxed
paper negatives that when I use Pictorico, etc. Pictorico, I'm sure, could
be fine, but I haven't had time to produce a decent "curve" for it.
Conveniently, the compressed range of the paper-neg is perfect for my own
gum process using just the plain, old straight and un-altered output.