Re: digital negative possibilities for gum
No argument there, Sam, but we were talking (I thought) about a
straight-across comparison between an inkjet negative from a 360 ppi
file, and the same file turned into a 360 ppi bitmap. Of course
higher resolution bitmaps will be less gritty; I would have assumed
that would go without saying.
Katharine
On Oct 20, 2006, at 5:44 AM, stwang@bellsouth.net wrote:
Wait! You mean to tell me that Lenswork magazine reproductions look
rough and gritty? They are printed from very high resolution
diffusion dither negatives.
There are 2 apects of bitmap negatives that no one mentioned:
resolution and density. At higher resolution, say 400LPI (not dpi),
you can't see the dots unless through a strong magnifier. Look at
your inkjet prints and try to see the dots. The other is density.
Service bureau negatives are extremely high contrast, just like in
Photoshop and properly processed Koalith, perfectly black, but very
small, dots on clear film. Whereas inkjet negatives, whether
bitmapped or not, typically are formed by grey or colored dots that
transmit some light.
And each of these affect how the resulting gum print would look
like. And each will need a different curve and a different way of
printing.
Sam Wang
From: Camden Hardy <camden@hardyphotography.net>
Date: 2006/10/20 Fri AM 12:26:09 EDT
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: digital negative possibilities for gum
I am not sure what you are asking when you said "why?" below.
Some people prefer the rough, gritty look. I know I do sometimes...
Camden Hardy
camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net
http://www.hardyphotography.net
|