Re: dig negs (Burkholder)
I know I said I was done with this topic, but I have a few thoughts.
> To me, the test of a product or new method is the prints that result.
> If the hyperbole surrounding PDN had merit, one would expect the PDN
> system to be producing gum prints that are vastly superior to
> anything that's been made before, but so far they just look like gum
> prints to me-- not better, not worse, than other gum prints that
> have been made.
A consistent means of creating digital negatives (i.e. PDN or Dan's
method) wouldn't necessarily create "vastly superior" prints compared to
other gum prints. If the system works for a given person, they may be
"vastly superior" to one's previous works. That doesn't make the system
of choice any less valuable.
> The gum prints, present and past, that I consider
> extraordinary in terms of the quality of the printing, tonal scale
> and so forth, have been made from a variety of negative types, from
> imagesetter negatives to continuous tone, and there's nothing about
> PDN that's suddenly blowing everything else out of the water as far
> as I can see.
I'm going to question whether gum's a good example to use here. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but doesn't gum have a rather short tonal scale? Based
on my experience, gum gives much more latitude in your digital negatives
than a process like pt/pd. Assuming I'm right here (and I'm by no means
saying that I am), it follows that the accuracy of a digital neg is much
less important for gum.
Also, a "correct" digital neg wouldn't do anything to the tonal scale (or
continuous tones) of the process; it would merely give a more accurate
representation of tones in the final print.
> So I'd like to offer another point of view to reassure
> those people: if you can't or would rather not spend that kind of
> money, you can make perfectly acceptable gum prints without either
> system, and save your money for gum and paper.
It could be argued that you'd save money in the long run from all that gum
and paper that wouldn't be wasted...