U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: dig negs

RE: dig negs

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: RE: dig negs
  • From: EJN Photo <ejnphoto@sbcglobal.net>
  • Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:41:50 -0500
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:thread-index:X-MimeOLE;b=55/peeF0gZ6dYOG0+KFggiAFD2LtYpMZn6kGm4fC2Cgp6SC9iWOYOKrgcViNgfcVEDs8Y8IIUpOUj/Cqw1VzPZlRMQkLF4KN7Q8mSMdD21wW72ovLvY1OAkZzOya1nxJXFQsH0TOTaf9WkhmVadS6/SPA4uHn8gIX3K0DVfvf3k= ;
  • In-reply-to: <23E78B7C-8458-43B3-A721-C9CC394E8979@pacifier.com>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Thread-index: AcbnIGU7VlKl0mg7TdCBh+q+5FD6ugAA1O2w

K, I understood Dan to say that these were jpegs of the prints made from the
complete process. He even included a wink about actually having them held by
the individual that made them to make that clear. 

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
Skype : ejprinter> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:16 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: dig negs
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Dan Burkholder wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > The images on that web site are jpegs of the images that were
> turned
> > into hand-coated platinum/palladium and pigment-over-
> platinum. The
> > actual prints were much nicer (richer and with more charm)
> than the
> > reproductions. I don't find any virtue in photographing (or
> scanning)
> > prints and then turning them into jpegs to put on the web. In
> my
> > experience, photos of hand-coated prints almost always look
> dull and
> > lifeless unless you alter them in Photoshop anyway. Heck,
> back in the
> > old days when we had to submit slides for juried competitions
> and
> > such,
> > I'd always "cheat" by shooting slides of a silver gelatin
> prints
> > instead; a slide of the "real" pt/pd print would look like
> gray mud in
> > comparison. I never had final prints rejected because the
> print didn't
> > look like the entry slide that I'd submitted. Make sense? In
> the next
> > workshop in which we print alt images, I'll get a group shot
> of
> > everyone
> > (with a big smile on their faces) holding their lovely
> prints!
> Dan,
> I'm glad Joe asked the question, since I had made the mistake
> of
> thinking that what you showed us were prints that were made in
> the
> workshop.  Now I understand you to say these are the original
> photos
> that the negatives were made from, not prints that were made
> from the
> negatives.
> I  have to agree with Joe;  showing us the original images
> rather
> than the final prints tells us nothing whatever about how well
> the
> negatives work,  and it seems... ..well, like Joe I don't see
> the
> point of offering these images as proof of the success of your
> method.
> I do agree that it's difficult to reproduce prints accurately,
> as we
> all know, but I'd rather see the prints anyway.
> Having said that, I will say that Dan's book, first edition,
> taught
> me how to make digital negatives, back in the days before
> photo-
> quality inkjet printers existed, and that his method worked
> quite
> well for me; I made a lot of gum prints from negatives printed
> on a
> 300 dpi and then a 600-dpi laser printer,  using Dan's method
> for
> producing imagesetter negatives from bitmap files. (Note that
> these
> were also scanned on an ancient scanner, a UMax 300, I think).
> It's
> not really fair to compare them to gum prints made from
> negatives
> printed from today's inkjet printers, but even considering what
> I was
> working with at the time, they don't seem too shabby to me.
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/eggs.html
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/sp.html
> These ARE the prints, by the way, but  I guess you can tell
> that
> anyway, like from the streaks in the background of the apricot.
> (At
> that time I thought it was cool to apply the coating very
> sparsely
> and streakily in the background area of an image so you could
> see the
> brushstrokes).
> What I don't understand is the idea that's been bouncing around
> in
> this discussion that in Dan's method, the curve that came on
> the CD
> was supposed to fit all situations.  That's sure not the way I
> remember it.  Dan offered a few curves to try, and showed you
> how to
> alter those curves to fit your situation, or make your own
> curves
> from scratch.  It wasn't a one-size-fits-all method as it's
> been
> portrayed here; instead it taught you how to make a curve that
> would
> result in your printed image, printed with your own situation
> and
> variables,  matching the tonal scale of the computer file.
> BTW Dan, I'm sorry I didn't know you were going to be so close;
> I
> would have stopped by to say hello.
> Katharine

  • References:
    • Re: dig negs
      • From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>