OK, this is a very preliminary report based on just a few hours of work with the Epson 1400, so don't hold me to it down the line.

1. I am going to preface everthing by saying that I can not come close to printing a grayscale gray, so something may be off.

2. The Claria inks do not have high UV absorption. A green that prints with maximum transmssion density in UV of 2.22 on the Epson 2200 and 2.38 on the 3800 prints with UV density of about 1.15 on the 1400.

3. However, printing in grayscale resulted in a transmission density in UV of about 1.85. This is plenty for most UV sensitive processes, including carbon, kallitype and pt./pd. Marginal for albumen and salted paper, but there may be a way to lay more ink down.

4. I mention the possibillity of laying more ink down because the Claria inks dry very fast, even on the inexpensive PhotoWarehouse OHP.

5. The definition, or resolution if you will, of the 1400 is superior to that of my 2200. On both photo paper and on OHP I can see better definition.

6. First observations of some test carbon prints on smooth surface photo paper show a very smooth tonal quality. Much better than I was able to get with the Epson 2200 with any color. About the same I saw in my work tests with Don Hutton's Epson 3800.

Not drawing any conclusions yet.

Sandy

Thanks for the preliminary report. I look forward to hearing more.

Thanks for the preliminary report. I look forward to hearing more.

OK, but this is really kind of kinky.

I am working with a digital step wedge that prints in perentage of density in Photoshop, from 0% to 100%. OK, I just measured a print from the Epson 1400 on OHP with my densitometer. Values in log density readings.

Green Mode
Step 0-- 0.04
Step50 -- .33
Step 100 -- 2.34

Blue Mode
Step 0 -- 0.05
Step 50 -- 0.34
Step 100 -- 2.34

UV
Step 0 -- 0.07
Step 50 -- .44
Step 100 -- 1.80

This really has me scratching my head. For what it is worth, my densitomer reads as follows.

Green -- Center wave length at 543 nm, maximum bandwith of 54 nm.

Blue -- Center wave length at 458 nm, maximum bandwith of 57 nm

UV -- Center wave length of 373 nm, maximum bandwith of 60 nm

Moreover, I am getting in actual tests of UV sensitive processes much more contrast than would be suggested by negative measurements in UV mode with my densitomete.


Sandy

OK, but this is really kind of kinky.

I am working with a digital step wedge that prints in perentage of density in Photoshop, from 0% to 100%. OK, I just measured a print from the Epson 1400 on OHP with my densitometer. Values in log density readings.

Green Mode
Step 0-- 0.04
Step50 -- .33
Step 100 -- 2.34

Blue Mode
Step 0 -- 0.05
Step 50 -- 0.34
Step 100 -- 2.34

UV
Step 0 -- 0.07
Step 50 -- .44
Step 100 -- 1.80

This really has me scratching my head. For what it is worth, my densitomer reads as follows.

Green -- Center wave length at 543 nm, maximum bandwith of 54 nm.

Blue -- Center wave length at 458 nm, maximum bandwith of 57 nm

UV -- Center wave length of 373 nm, maximum bandwith of 60 nm

Moreover, I am getting in actual tests of UV sensitive processes much more contrast than would be suggested by negative measurements in UV mode with my densitomete.


Sandy

Thanks Sandy, whatever the cause of this discrepency ends up being, it sounds like this printer should work for printing digital negs for Pt-pd. Have you noticed any of the venetian blind effect?

Thanks Sandy, whatever the cause of this discrepency ends up being, it sounds like this printer should work for printing digital negs for Pt-pd. Have you noticed any of the venetian blind effect?

Hi Don,

Yes, if you print your RGB file on screen and print it with color inks with maximum resolulution you get a B&W negative (well, with some reddish color) with a maximum transmission density in the UV of about 1.8. This is good enough for carbon, kallitype and pt./pd. So at this point you can map input and output values and develop a curve. As chance would have it, the DR of 1.8 is almost exactly what I have been using with the 2200, but with a Green branch color.

The major issue with the 1400 is that it will not allow you full use of Mark Nelson's PDN system for alternative printing, since that is based on matching the ES of your process to a specific color combination. There is simply not not enough UV transmission density with the spectral density path.

I have not tested yet for the Venetian blind issue. Unfortunately this is something that develop over time with Epson printers and is not always there when the printer is new.

Sandy

Don, (and anyone else interested)

I ran a few tests today with the Epson 1400 and Ilford Multigrade paper. I first determined that the ES of this paper, with my light source and no filter, is about 1.60. A print of the color palette of PDN showed that no PDN color would produce enough density, so I first printed a RGB desaturated 102 step tablet in color, which gives a mostly black looking negative. A print on Multigrade showed that the black negative produces way too much contrast, which was anticipated since a blue channel reading of the negative gave a reading of 2.40. That could be adjusted in the curve, but it would be very abrupt and far from ideal. Also, there was some type of visible dithering pattern visible in the mid-tones.

I figured that some other combination could be used to lower the contrast and read the densities of a print-out of MK-S' red-green array that he sent me a few days ago. There were several matches at maximum density of about 1.65 so I printed out one with R=32, G=32, B=0. That gave almost exactly the right contrast, and lots of sharpness, and no dithering pattern, but the mid-tones have a lot more grain than matching tones from a silver gelatin step wedge printed alongside the digital step tablet. I did another step wedge with R=128, G=48, but the dithering pattern came back. I plan to try a Red-Blue and Green-Blue combination, but unfortunately am about to run out of Ilford Multigrade.

BTW, these are printing artifacts are not something you would see on a color or B&W print. They result from the particular way in which the CMYK colors on the Pictorico substrate interact with the exposing light. In any event, there are probably about thirty combinations with a maximum density of about 1.6 and hopefully one of them will print smoothly.

Sandy

Sandy, Thanks for your efforts on this. This gives me enough hope to move forward with this. I am leaving for Italy at the end of March and anticipate moving into this for my small negatives when I return. If silver remains problematic at that time, I will move into Pd.

Sandy, Thanks for your efforts on this. This gives me enough hope to move forward with this. I am leaving for Italy at the end of March and anticipate moving into this for my small negatives when I return. If silver remains problematic at that time, I will move into Pd.


Don,

Turns out that we may have to treat VC silver and graded papers as entirely different beasts. I ran out of VC paper and picked up a pack of graded Ilford Galerie and printed the R=32, G=32 and B=0 combination on it. This combination resulted in a rather grainy look with VC papers, but it is very smooth with the graded paper. The smoothness is in fact very close to those of the comparison step wedge that I printed alongside it. You could definitely make silver prints with this combination that would compare nicely to silver prints from silver negatives.

So maybe the graded paper route is the way to go with silver. And of course, you have complete control of contrast with the negative so the variable contrast thing is not an issue.

Sandy

I verified the first tests on graded Ilford Paper (Galerie 2) and the results were just as positive as the first time. The tones are very smooth, not quite what you would see on silver paper from a contact print, but better by far than what you would see from a 16X20 silver print from a 4X5 medium speed B&W negative. I never came close to this quality with the Epson 2200 on AZO.

Bear in mind, this is with the R=32, G=32 and B=0 combination, which gives a maximum density of about 1.65 on Ultrafine and just a tad more on Pictorico. This very closely matches the exposure scale of the Ilford Ilfobrom Galerie FB 2 that I used for the test, developed in Ansco 130 1:2.

So I think for printing on graded silver papers the Epson 1400 looks to be a real winner, and at a very attractive price. It is a minor inconvenience, at least for me, that it can not be used with Mark Nelson's PDN system, but I will post my findings and curves for folks to play with if there is interest.

Sandy King

So I think for printing on graded silver papers the Epson 1400 looks to be a real winner, and at a very attractive price. It is a minor inconvenience, at least for me, that it can not be used with Mark Nelson's PDN system, but I will post my findings and curves for folks to play with if there is interest.

I'd be interested. Thanks!

-roger

Turns out that we may have to treat VC silver and graded papers as entirely different beasts. I ran out of VC paper and picked up a pack of graded Ilford Galerie and printed the R=32, G=32 and B=0 combination on it. This combination resulted in a rather grainy look with VC papers, but it is very smooth with the graded paper. The smoothness is in fact very close to those of the comparison step wedge that I printed alongside it. You could definitely make silver prints with this combination that would compare nicely to silver prints from silver negatives.

This is entirely normal. You know how your densitometer reads green, blue, and UV? Multigrade paper has two layers of emulsion, a high contrast coating sensitive to blue light, and a lower contrast one sensitive to green.

So, yellow dots block blue, but the green sensitive portion of the emulsion still responds, magenta dots block green, and cyan blocks yellow. White is where you have either a black dot, or a yellow and green dot overlap. There are a lot more "holes" (where a dot only blocks blue or green, but not both) than you see for a conventional process.

There's a reason I make all my negatives from five dilutions of carbon black.


So maybe the graded paper route is the way to go with silver. And of course, you have complete control of contrast with the negative so the variable contrast thing is not an issue.
Variable contrast can be a quick way of compensating for temperature drift, paper inconsistency, and developer inconsistency and depletion.

This is entirely normal. You know how your densitometer reads green, blue, and UV? Multigrade paper has two layers of emulsion, a high contrast coating sensitive to blue light, and a lower contrast one sensitive to green.

So, yellow dots block blue, but the green sensitive portion of the emulsion still responds, magenta dots block green, and cyan blocks yellow. White is where you have either a black dot, or a yellow and green dot overlap. There are a lot more "holes" (where a dot only blocks blue or green, but not both) than you see for a conventional process.

There's a reason I make all my negatives from five dilutions of carbon black.

Variable contrast can be a quick way of compensating for temperature drift, paper inconsistency, and developer inconsistency and depletion.

That makes perfect sense. I knew that the problem must be due the blue and green sensitivity in the emulsion but had not though through the ramifications.

Would you comment further on what printer you use, ink sets and what controls you use to use five dilutions of carbon black? I plan to use the Epson 1400 only for making digital negatives and if I could set it up to just print with dilutions of carbon black I think it might serve my needs better.


Thanks for your comments.

Sandy King

Sandy thanks for posting your results on this. I find this to be very interesting since I have absolutely no experience with digital negs and appreciate any help that those of you care to share.

Sandy thanks for posting your results on this. I find this to be very interesting since I have absolutely no experience with digital negs and appreciate any help that those of you care to share.

Don,

I think we are in the infancy of making wet-processed prints with digital negatives, and it is exciting to see people with such great knowledge share it here with us. There will always be an allure and fascination with traditional printing processes, and especially those that require preparing one's own sensitized papers.

What is really neat about this site is that people with great knowledge in both traditional wet procesing, including historical processes, can share knowledge with persons with great expertise in digital printing.

Sandy King

I too am very interested in this process especially for silver. I only contact print and was looking into digital negatives to make bigger prints without having to go from 5x7 in-camera negatives to getting an 11x14 rig. It was my understanding the only way to get a digital negative that would print on silver without the banding had to be from an imagesetter, so this is exciting.

chris

That makes perfect sense. I knew that the problem must be due the blue and green sensitivity in the emulsion but had not though through the ramifications.

Would you comment further on what printer you use, ink sets and what controls you use to use five dilutions of carbon black? I plan to use the Epson 1400 only for making digital negatives and if I could set it up to just print with dilutions of carbon black I think it might serve my needs better.


Thanks for your comments.

Sandy King
You're quite welcome. I mostly use a 2200. I have two of those. One is set to run color, and stays that way. One is set for monochrome, and gets experiment on all the time. The monochrome machine is typically set up with what I call "Wiz7".

MK = MIS eboni 100%
LK = MIS PKN 100%
C = MIS PKN 32%
LC = MIS PKN 10%
M = MIS PKN 3.2%
LM = MIS PKN 1%
Y = MIS glop

I control it through either Harrington's Quadtone RIP (QTR) or my own Graphic RIP (GRIP).

For QTR, I build curves using Eboni, and all five PKN, but no glop. For glossy paper, I build the curves with all five PKN and glop, and no eboni.

For negatives, all five PKN, no glop, no eboni. The curves are set for the highest ink densities the film will take.

GRIP is easier, but it isn't ready for prime time yet. It can do things that QTR can't. It calibrates based on either print or negative densities. GRIP works in sensiometric curves, once it knows how to lay down any desired density on a negative, you can simply print a Stoufer wedge with a particular combination of paper, developer, exposure time and developing time, measure the density, feed it into GRIP, and it prints for that process. I'm teaching it how to do separations for colored gum, bromoil, carbon, etc.

If you already have an 1800, that's the machine I'd set up for negatives, not the 1400. I detailed an 1800 setup in another recent thread.

A basic question so I understand what you're saying here. The percentages expressed in the PKN inks, is that how you physically dilute the PKN ink or is that how the curve reduces each cart from 100 percent? Can you post the QTR file so I can see how the curves look. Thx.
~m

OK, I gave the Epson 1400 a fair try but I am throwing in the towel and sending it back to its maker. Basiclally the low UV blocking of the dye ink set severely limits my options for making digital negatives for alternative prnting, which is my major interest.

And for silver printing, the use of a dedicated printer thaet would use dilutions of carbon black, as WIZ has explained, makes a lot more sense to me than the use of colored negatives, especially for printing with VC papers.



Sandy King

A basic question so I understand what you're saying here. The percentages expressed in the PKN inks, is that how you physically dilute the PKN ink or is that how the curve reduces each cart from 100 percent? Can you post the QTR file so I can see how the curves look. Thx.
~m

Those are physical dilutions. I'll post a QTR curve tonight or tomorrow. Not at the right machine right now.

I was sorry to hear Sandy throwing in the towel on the Epson 1400. I am about to purchase one. I'm brand new to this forum, and to attempting all the testing necessary to begin making DN's for Silver only. I appreciate all the wisdom and advice located here, though.

I have recently been through the difficulty of trying VC paper as an option with no luck. The results echo Sandy's description of how the silver paper sees the colored light. PL/PD is UV sensitive only and that is a very different sensitivity. I had the test targets printed on an Epson 4000. I attempted to establish my color usage described in the PDN system. Turns out no color works well for VC or graded Silver paper. I was hoping that a gray negative could be used. My hope is that the dyes in the 1400 printer would be finer and smoother than Pigmented inks. My test chart was printed on Ultra Premium OHP film. It showed banding and chunkiness on the silver print, even though film wasn't that bad. I believe Brad Hinkel's advice for using Hi-Gloss White Film is probably the right way to go. I'm ordering that, too.

I'm still going to go ahead and get the 1400 and begin testing again. I will have to work out the issue of a non-gray grayscale, but I feel confident I can overcome that issue. Then I will print to a Grade 2 paper. The calibrator used in PDN's system should still allow linerization of the tones to get an effective compensation curve.

I'm excited to begin the next phase of burning through lots of ink and paper making test charts. Oh, well.
-Bruce Decker