Re: dig negs
Dan Burkholder wrote:
...Seems like ample evidence that it sure works. You can see the participants' work (and a group shot of all of us!) at this URL:Dan,
But these images aren't in any instance alternative process prints from diginegs generated using your system, or are they? If any of the images posted represent something like 4-color gumprints, gum/platinum prints, or pigment/platinum, etc., from diginegs, I'm amazed at the quality. Otherwise, I don't see the relevance of referring to them in the discussion at hand or citing the experience as "ample evidence" that your system works. Just because negatives were generated at the workshop "on the spot" doesn't mean they were adequate to produce fine prints. Can you point to some print examples from those negatives?
FWIW, I have both your original text and inkjet companion and have been able to successfully create some technically proficient VDB, gum, and cyanotype prints using the latter with the provided templates, an Epson 2200, and a bit of tweaking of the curves (which IME and those I've corresponded with on the subject, is always necessary). I think the inkjet technology advanced sufficiently just previous to the release of your inkjet companion so that good inkjet negatives could finally be made. Before that, I would have to relate that the ink density just wasn't there for processes like VDB and that other paths were adequate for gum diginegs. Ag, Pt/Pd - dunno - never tried those until recently and so I lack sufficient experience to comment in that arena. I will say the handy templates alone are probably worth the price of admission. The curves OTOH have to be tweaked for good results, at least in my experience. (Maybe it's the water around here...)
Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide.