celasun

Thanks, Phil.

Someone did answer on photrio and suggested I can as well consider laser printers as my needs are not much. For inkjets, he says all I need is "pigment" (not dye) inks.

I had been using a fine Epson photo-printer some years ago for printing transparencies as digital negatives. Unfortunately, I ruined it by a long neglect, which killed the head.

 

Recently, I purchased a simpler Epson photo-printer (L805) which satisfies all my photo printing at home. To my surprise, it simply can not print transparencies (due to its printing technology&inks, I guess). I had no doubts, while buying it, that it could print digital negatives without problem. I costly mistake.

 

Now, I do need to print digital negatives for cyanotype and perhaps for van Dykes (and, perhaps kallitypes). My budget is very low and I will be using the printer "only" for this particular purpose. The printer has to live happily with Linux, by the way.

 

Locally, I can get a printer like HP Smart Tank 515 (or, 530) for example.

 

Unfortunately, and to my surprise again, none of the current inkjet printers I can afford list transparency as a media they can print on (including the one above).

 

I know that "some" inexpensive inkjet printers "can" print nicely on transparencies even when their specs fail to list it. But, I am not in a position to handle that risk.

 

I should be most happy to hear some advice from people with more experience on printing digital negatives with current inkjets.

...

Rubber blade designs have also been used. They can work OK too, but when they get old, the edges get hard and crack and you get horrible scratches. Never liked 'em much.

Thank you Conrad, I will try making something similar.

When I used to use the sponge technique, the two sponge pieces were mounted on plastic tongs and you merely lightly squeezed them as you moved the device down the length of the film.

Thank you for your description. It sounds safe enough.

Everybody seems dead set against them, but I always use a double sponge tool to remove excess water. Just keep it clean to avoid scratches. In many decades I never had a scratch. Also never had drying marks!

Conrad, is the sponge tool you mentioned the one we use in the kitchen?

<p>>It would still be hard to explain why the 50mm shots on that roll look fine though<br>

Maybe blurriness was not as easily discernible due to increased DOF. </p>

<p>Even though today's sensors are a lot better than the earlier ones, they are still a source of noise (as electronic devices). So; everything equal (they are hardly ever!), I expect more noise with longer exposures. Not sure about noise itself but noise removal techniques can decrease resolution. </p>

<p>I believe KEH does. </p>

<p>Some red flowers crying to be photographed!<br>

Pentax K3, Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX Macro. </p><div></div>

<p>Thank you very much to you all.<br>

The comments and the provided links were most informative.<br>

For my particular case (macro shooting under continuous and relaively low light), this means I should be better off using the lens with the widest maxumum aperture (to allow for easier working conditions); without much regard to focal length. </p>

 

<p>Ellis and Joseph, thank you for your contributions. This correspondence did help my understanding of the issue better.</p>

<p>I thought, in the meantime, perhaps it may be better to rephrase my query like below (I admit a picture might have been better):</p>

<p>The first hypothetical positioning (from left to right):<br /> Fuji GX680 (stationary)... 80 mm rail and bellows... 100mm lens... object magnified 1:1.<br /> The second hypothetical positioning :<br /> Fuji GX680 (stationary)... 80 mm rail and bellows... 180mm lens... object magnified 1:1.</p>

<p>I guess, in the second example the object will be farther away from the camera. That may place it towards the wider part of the now (tilted) cone-shaped DOF. Hence, a longer lens may help achiving more DOF for this particular object which sits entirely within the cone.<br /> However, I can also imagine that the longer lens will have a narrover cone shaped DOF and perhaps this nullifies the above optimistic hypothesis. That is, even if I can put the object farther away than that of the first position, the DOF will not change for the better (as long as the magnification is the same).<br /> Boring? Sorry :(</p>

<p>John, <br>

Thank you for your response.<br>

The link you provided deserves a detailed reading tonight!<br>

Actually, my confusion stems from an illustration at the middle of this page:<br>

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses2.htm</p>

<p>As you can see, the DOF (using the Scheimpflug principle) appers to increase dramatically when the subject to lens distance increases. I just wonder if this applies for the increased distance due to the focal length. It may well be independent of it. I just don't know / understand. </p>

<p>I may be a bit confused about selection of a focal length for macro work using Fuji GX680 (II). <br>

I know one can employ practically any lens for macro and I have the 80mm rail to allow for this. <br>

My project my necessitate using the lens movements at limits (of the GX680 system). <br>

We know that for the usual cameras without bellows extensions, longer focal length lenses allow a longer working distance for a given magnification. <br>

I wonder if this is true for the GX680 system. <br>

I ask this because a longer subject distance can help me use the Scheimpflug principle better allowing for more DOF for the same magnification (that is using the 180mm lens vs the 100 mm).</p>

<p>Do I miss something?</p>

 

<p>Thank you very much. Much appreciated :)</p>

<p>Sigma 70 mm EX Macro f/2.8 is also the lens I love and use most for macros. I also have Pentax SMC F 50mm Macro and Vivitar Series 1 105 mm f/2.5 Macro. For whatever reason, my hand always picks the Sigma!</p>

<p>Les,<br>

Beautiful colors and, somehow, a sense of smile!</p>

<p>I loved the submissions so far; especially those of Jim Trahan and most notably The Pavement and Sing To Me. </p>

<p>Fall.<br>

Flexaret VII, Fuji Pro 160s (Best Before 7/2012).</p><div></div>

<p>Martin,<br>

I wrote them and told that I would be happy to buy one if they make it available. </p>

<p>Nathan,<br>

As far as I know, spare shutters are scarce and you can only have them repaired / replaced in Japan. I believe, you may have more luck if you have a relative / close friend living in Japan who can deal with the matter as if they were his/her cameras. The German company mentioned above did not reply my repeated messages for a shutter repair/replacement. I will not be surprised if they do not have any spares left...</p>

<p>K20D with Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro.</p><div></div>

<p>Just a note for future visitors considering getting a Contax 645: The shutter mechanism has a life (no wonder!) and the mechanism made by Copal is "practically" unreplaceable. In other words, parts are "almost" unavailable... Go decide for a purchase!</p>

<p>Primrose.<br>

Pentax K20D with Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX Macro.</p><div></div>

<p>The shutter mechanism has a certain life. When it dies, it dies.<br>

Practically, replacement parts are NOT available any longer.</p>

<p>This!</p><div></div>