Re: dig negs (Burkholder)
I appreciate the efforts of all of the people who have contributed to our
knowledge about making digital negatives for printing with alternative
processes. That includes not only Dan and Mark, but a number others, some
whose name many of you would not remember. My colleague Sam Wang was doing
this back in the early 1990s, well before there was any published
literature on the subject. There is no question but what the use of
digital negatives has contribured greatly to the growth in popularity of
alternative processes. It has been especially useful to me in workshops on
carbon printing since we can move directly from the mechanical aspects of
negative making to the more creative print making. And believe me, it is a
very gratifying to see students able to come away from a workshop with a
handful of nice prints.
In any event, if you really want to learn to make good digital negatives I
recommend that you get Dan's book as well as PDN. Dan's book is an
excellent introduction and covers a number of things that are not covered
in Mark's PDN. It is also very well written and organized. I learned to
make digital negatives from Dan's first book (the one with the flying
tortoise) and find the current one an excellent reference. I am currently
using PDN as it provides a system which permits finer adjustments of the
curve, very important if you want to make maximum use of the process Dmax.
For example, in-camera negatives that only allow about 90% of Dmax can be
scanned and the curve tweaked to allow 95% and even higher of potential
In any event I have learned a lot about making digital negatives from both
Mark and Dan, and sincerely thank them for their efforts, which have
greatly facilitated my own work.
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Camden Hardy wrote:
>> One more note, and then I'm done with this topic (I can hear your
>> rejoicing now). :)
>> My initial reply to this thread was written quickly, and as a result I
>> think a lot of people (possibly everyone) misunderstood me.
> Well, if you want to be understood as meaning that you simply prefer
> Mark's method as a personal preference, then don't say that Dan's
> method "doesn't work very well." I didn't think you were attacking
> Dan, but I was offended, as I will always be, by a categorical
> statement that I know to be false.