U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: dig negs (Burkholder)

Re: dig negs (Burkholder)

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.

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?