[Alt-photo] Darkroom Print Driver
smieglitz at gmail.com
Wed Jul 19 20:07:49 UTC 2017
On Jul 19, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Marek Matusz via Alt-photo-process-list wrote:
> I would take a somewhat different approach. Thin of it going back to film negatives. I you would create a series of curves that produces a certain dmax of the digital negative ranging from 1 to 3 in 0.2 increments it would be much better that creating a specific process negative. Sometimes I would pick dmax if 1.4 or 1.8 for palladium so it's not like there is one absolutely best negative Everybody's practice alters the desired negative density. This is especially true with salt and gum. I print much denser gum negatives than common practice would have it but I have a workflow that matches it.
> And with salt the range can be even larger depending on your chemistry and workflow
> But at the end it is a certain uv negative density that you want
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 8:41 AM, forums--- via Alt-photo-process-list <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org> wrote:
>> Hey everyone.
>> I’m in the initial stages of building a totally new Epson driver dedicated to light sensitive print production (historical process and silver). It will make both positive and negative transparencies and be fully controllable with standard ICC profiling systems (just like normal paper inkjet printing). It will also double the resolution of the Epson printer beyond what the Epson drivers allow (new driver will do 2880x2880 for wide format printers, and 5760x2880 for small format printers including the new SureColors).
>> I’d like your thoughts on what default negative density slopes would be useful as a starting point.
>> Here are my thoughts on the defaults and the naming schema. These are essentially “media types” that you would select before hitting print.
>> Platinum and Palladium
>> Gelatin Silver
>> Gum is not in there yet because I want to have more than one gum type that would do the RGB separation properly in the driver . . . maybe in later versions.
>> Ziatype is also not in there because it’s all over the place . . . . maybe salt is too . . . .
>> Anything else? Should it be a totally different list?
>> Your suggestions and comments are most welcome.
>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list