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 Dmax. 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. Sandy King > > 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. > Katharine >
|