... except for that fuckin' opening whoosh! jeez, that's annoying!

(blushing)

Yes, use the B&S printing technique on all your tests and prints. I'm testing some other colors besides yellow and hope to have a new video... sometime.

@Marcco Can you recommend a current printer that produces good negatives?

Sorry, Paulo, I’ve never tried carbon

You can see the dull-looking print (1B) at 10:00. It's not too dark. I concluded I was trying to hold detail in the dark quarter-tones and that was making the contrast too low. Instead of making the dark spot on the left cabbage an almost-black, I moved that density to the center-back area and let the left spot go true black. The midtones become darker but that gives a pleasing contrast to the brightest highlights, which begin to stand out. If you stop the video precisely at 10:12 you'll see 1B and 1C superimposed. Besides darkening the lows, I also pulled the lightest curve point up a bit. Remember that the mids and highs are very sensitive to changes in the curve. For 1D I pulled the highs up even a bit farther (see 10:32). I hope this helps.

@@tnp651 Thanks!

Augusto, you should use the same steps and timing except the hypo clear and final wash. Both the toner and the fixer change the Dmax. You don’t care about archival permanence, so the wash steps don’t matter.

@@tnp651 Thank you Tom!

Hi Gianandrea, I don’t see any advantage to the Ultra film. The manufacturer says “This "Ultra" version differs from standard "Pro Premium" transparency sheets in its excellent compatibility with Epson UltraChrome Photo Black K3 ink, high UV density, and higher capacity for ink absorption.” If you are getting adequate ink density from the less expensive version, there’s no need to change.

@@tnp651 thank you for your kind advice!

I apply my curves before inversion. Bostick & Sullivan recommends the opposite (and of course the curve would look totally different) but I don’t know why. Applying to the positive image makes it more intuitive to change the curve if needed (“the highlights are too light, so I’ll darken them” for instance).

To be honest, I haven’t tried B&S’s pre-made curve but there are too many variables that change your image. It’d be easy to try B&S’s curve and see what you get. In any case, assess and change as I showed in the video.

@@tnp651 will do. I’m just waiting on a printer to print my negative.

Thanks for the comment. My advice to avoid matte ink comes from my experience using it on Pictorico transparency film. If it doesn't smear on Folex, go for it!

Matte paper absorbs more ink than glossy paper, so matte ink is applied more thickly. Plastic films don't absorb ink at all, so the lighter application of glossy ink is better for them.

Use the B&S method for your test neg and all negs.

You'll at least have to try the old curve with the new printer, then adjust as necessary. If my technique seems complicated, the main takeaway is that your test print will tell you how to adjust the curve. You mainly need to know what will give a textured white and a textured black (the limits of your ability to show detail).

@@tnp651 Thank you Tom! )))

ChartThrob expects a scan but it’s worth substituting a picture. You’ll find out soon enough if it works. Alternatively, have a friend scan it for you. You only need the scanner one time.

Tom Nelson thank You so much!

No imprimo paladio, pero aquí hay un vídeo que podría ayudar. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e8uofZyA0dLKqac.html

Most alt process printers I know use Epson SureColor printers. I have an Epson P600.

@@tnp651 Thank you for the great video! And reply

I don’t know. You should make a test to see if the print is dark enough to print a white, and does not have visible lines or dots.

Try it and see, then report back. I haven't heard of anyone doing it.

Time it to see how many units are in a minute. Say there are 20 units in a minute. I’m not familiar with the NuArc but I’d guess you’ll need something between 3 and 7 minutes. That’s 60-140 units in this hypothetical example. Give your test strip 60 units, then cover part of it. Then give a series of exposures at 10 units, covering more of the strip each time.

Did you ever figure it out. I have a NuArc 3140 and will probably run into the same issue here shortly. Thanks

Enlarging a digital negative is not advisable. You'll be enlarging the printer dots that make up the image. You might make it work if you print the neg at the highest resolution your printer can make, and don't make a very big enlargement. Why not just make a contact print though?

@@tnp651 I can just do that yes. I thought I would just have a master neg that can do all sizes by putting in an enlarger. Was just a though. Any current printer recommendations for up to 16/20

Thanks BTW‼️

@@davidventura1424 Most alt printers use Epsons. The XP-700 prints 13" wide and the XP-900 prints 17"wide. The XP-900 is 50% more expensive for those few extra inches!

I finally got it loaded but I had to download it on a PC and transfer the file on a thumb drive.

Yes, I just realized the problem. The site downloads a file called ChartThrob.jsx.txt. You need to remove the "(dot) txt" to use it as a script. Let me know if you still have trouble.

Thanks for getting back to me. That’s the first thing I tried to no avail. I must have tried 20 times in different ways but it still wouldn’t install. In the end I downloaded the file on my old PC and it installed straight away in PS 2020. I then copied the file from the PC to a thumb drive and transferred it to the Mac. I dragged the file into the appropriate folder and it works. Removing the .txt doesn’t work as the Mac still sees it as a text file.

Failing to install Chartthrob on a M1 Mac running Big Sur with Ps 2021 or a PC running Windows 10 and PsCS6 but neither open the script. Gives an error 23 at line 134. Have made sure to use the 662kb script file. Any suggestions?

Laser printers create an image made of noticeable dots or lines. Inkjets put down a spray of microscopic droplets.

For me, it’s the excitement of learning and exploring an old-time technique. Getting back in the darkroom is nostalgic for me, but I don’t want to lose the image control that digital provides. A hybrid process is the perfect compromise.

ink jet prints sit on top of the paper. these process are kinda burned into the paper chemically and the texture of the paper stands out. It also lasts way longer like those old photos that grandma used to have sitting in her house. That was the size of the negative so that was the size they printed at. Now we use digital to create bigger negatives to do the same printing but at a more modern and desirable size.