Re: dig negs (Burkholder)
> What I mean is that the things
> Burkholder has
> done need to be understood for what they have aspired to help us achieve.
I understand what Burkholder has done for digital negatives, and I think
it's a wonderful thing. And I agree, it was very revolutionary.
This is nothing personal against Burkholder (I've been accused of personal
attacks quite a bit lately, so I wanted to clarify). I don't know him, so
I have no intentions of badmouthing him in any way. I'm merely drawing
from my own experiences.
> His book wasn't designed for use with varying conditions?????
Maybe it's just me, but I really don't think downloading a curve from
Burkholder's site (which was not created under my own controlled
conditions) qualifies as being designed for varying conditions.
There are just too many variables here. Printer make/model/inkset,
process, coating method, humidity/temperature, lightbox, development
(chemistry and times), etc. The list goes on. You can't tell me that his
canned curve is going to more accurately match my screen than one I've
constructed myself, given all these variables. This is where PDN really
shines. It takes the variables into account.
> Of course it is laudible that Nelson has fashioned a scientific method. It
> is wonderful that
> he's eliminated the need for me to do all that work myself. But
> Burkholder's value lay
> elsewhere: he has shown us how to size up variables, try unlikely possible
> and keep circling the beast. Not formulas, but a method with which to
> think for oneself.
As artists, I would hope we can all think for ourselves. In shopping for
a digital negative system, I'm looking for something to give me exactly
what I want, not a means to "think for oneself". I can do that on my own.
I really hope that Dan and his loyal fans don't take this the wrong way.
I really respect Burkholder's work for digital negs, as well as his bold
incorporation of inkjet color to pt/pd. But for my money, I'd still have
to go with Mark's system.