I do cyanotypes,Pt/pd printing and want to make my own enlarget negatives on a inkjet printer. I do have a Epson 1270 and I tried out some overhead films , but still there is some microlining (fine stripes) left. Where can I find more information about Inkjettransparencies ( which films do work best , maybe a different printer like Epson 3000 would work better....) Is there a Newsgroup or a forum on internet Thanks for your help Wolf

-- Wolf A. Piontek (info@wolf-a-piontek.de), June 21, 2001

Answers

The few old platinumtypes that I've seen all show exquisite detail and tonality, and this, to me, is their appeal. Why ruin those qualities by going through an unnecessary digital process?
Surely, when the platinum process itself is so demanding, the few extra steps taken to obtain a traditional enlarged negative are worth the time and effort?
I'm not a digital Luddite. I fully embrace the advantages that digital can bring, but this just seems a ludricrous combination of technologies IMHO.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 21, 2001.

Wolf,

There is an excellent book: 'Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing' by Dan Burkholder. I am just blown away by the possibilities. I have an OLD Epson Stylus Color 600, and even with it, I get excellent results.

Dan also has a web site at: http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/main_pages/page1_main.htm

Feel free to drop me a line!

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), June 21, 2001.

I agree and endorse the use of the Dan Burkholder method for creating digital negatives. I have only worked with negatives made by an image setter,rather than the inkjet variety.

Note to Pete - Yes it is a ludicrous combination, but I have a great sense of humor 8) The digital inkjet negative gets you to the platinum printing stage much faster than going through the wet process copy negative. Making the print is the thing. The inkjet digital negative gets you there faster.

-- Joe Lipka (JoeLipka@compuserve.com), June 21, 2001.

thank you for your answers ! But to Pete Andrews : In my case there is no unneccessary Digital Process cause Iwork with aDigital Back on my Sinar and Im getting out 18 to 120 Mb !! pure Data , not scanned data with grain , false color adjusting etc . So I get out 32 cm x 56 cm negatives with a uncompareble sharpness ( even more sharp and detailed than a 4x5 inch and scanned negative ) Of course I give in the most cases my data to an imagesetter and they get great results but!!! they get my data and need to adjust , change or translate it to their Lambda or Agfa Setter and Rips!!! and sometimes Ihave to wait 1 week ... So I would prefere doing qick and quite perfect negs myself!

To chris : I ve heard about the book from Dan Burkholder but its hard to get in Europe but I definetly want to find it .

to Joe : quite exact; it should get faster and more controlled results

So if somebody knows more , please write !! Wolf

-- Wolf A. Piontek (info@wolf-a-piontek.de), June 22, 2001.

Wolf, I am sure you can order the book directly from Dan and have it shipped to Europe. Go to his web site, you can e-mail him & I am sure he will be glad to respond.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), June 22, 2001.

This book is available on Amazon.com. They list a 4-6 week availability. I don't know if they ship out of the US, though. Worth checking out.

-- Steven Hupp (shupp@chicagobotanic.org), June 22, 2001.

Why not make your negs for traditional processes using traditional processes? Digital can be used where it works best. To clean up your mistakes or change things when your vision fails you and you are stuck with a crappy image you are trying to "improve" to make up for your lack of vision in the first place.

While the marriage of pixellography with photography is seen as wonderful by some many of them are the same bunch who are never able to master the medium they already have. Then there are those who are supremely talented who can and will take digital to higher levels and not worry whether they are 'traditional' or 'progressive'. They will just use their talent, imagination and creativity to produce stunning images. They would do the same with normal old fashioned film, cameras and darkrooms if that was all they had to use.

Again, the bottom line is simple. If it works... use it.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), June 25, 2001.

perfect is in the eye of the beholder......

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), June 25, 2001.

I think it would be good to keep in mind that Wolf's question was...." [I] want to make my own enlarged negatives on an inkjet printer.... Where can I find more information about Inkjet transparencies...?'

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), June 25, 2001.

Thanks for keeping us on point Christian. The second poster noted Dan Burkholder's book. Please make sure that you get the second edition. It is more complete than the first. That's the one with the information on digital negatives via inkjet printers.

-- Joe Lipka (JoeLipka@compuserve.com), June 25, 2001.

To answer Dan (or rebut him) few people who would like to make large contact prints in platinum/paladium or any of the other cool processes can afford, say, an 11x14 camera to get that size print. And an enlarged neg from an inkjet printer is a much better alternative to enlarging a neg in the darkroom once you have calibrated your digital system. I've been seeing a lot of platinum prints made from digitally enlarged negs and they are exquisite. I feel it is well worth learning the technique. And digital is a great way to clean up mistakes on negs and alter the contrast on negs much more easily than in the darkroom. It's just a tool. Just like VC paper. Not everyone wants to be a purist. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), June 25, 2001.

Well, maybe my definition of exquisite definition and tonality is different from other peoples, because the B&W results I've been able to get from an Epson 870 are far from it.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 26, 2001.

Pete, there is a significant difference between a b&w inkjet print made on your 870, and a black and white photographic print made from a proper digital negative, also from your 870.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), June 26, 2001.

So a second generation copy improves the definition and tonal range does it?

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 27, 2001.

I have been making cyanotype prints from negatives I made using an Epson 1520 printer. I select the highest setting for the printer - 1440 dpi, and print onto inkjet window decals. These hold the ink well and have perfect prints. I have also made a few Palladium prints using the same methed with beautiful results. I really like going back and forth between older processes and new ones. And the prints are worth it. Ann

-- Ann Blackwell (annyb@umich.edu), June 28, 2001.