Re: dig negs (Burkholder)

[Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>]

On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
>
> > I have nothing against this recommendation on principle;  it's  
> > fair and if you've got both, you'll have more of a complete  
> > picture.  On the other hand, it may come as a surprise to some,  
> > but there are actually people in the world to whom $100+ is a  
> > whole heck of a lot of money, maybe even some people on this list  
> > who aspire to gum printing.  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.
> > As I said the other day, I used Dan's system in the days before  
> > photo-quality inkjet printers, because it was the only way to get  
> > a decent negative out of a low-resolution laser printer.   But  
> > since I got my first Epson Photo Stylus printer,  I've simply  
> > inverted the file and printed the negative as is.  (And if I ever  
> > decide I need to tweak a curve, that's what the Photoshop Adjust  
> > Curves feature is for).
> Actually, since Katharine opens this can of worms,
Actually (credit where it's due, you know) it was Loris who opened  
the can.  If he hadn't said something I wouldn't have said anything.
kt


On Oct 3, 2006, at 3:15 AM, Loris Medici wrote:
> Just for the record: My results were pretty consistent, reliable and
> beatiful before reading Mark's book also. I mean you can get quite
> consistent, reliable and beatiful results without PDN too - I don't  
> quite
> understand why PDN is presented as an absolute must for this purpose?