[alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints

[Loris Medici]

I see, you're coming from the signal processing perspective. I can
relate to that; the mottling case I was talking about early which I
experienced while printing cyanotype with imagesetter negatives for
instance. The dots invisible to unaided eye were still negatively
affecting the image quality, because they were exhibiting a
perceptible effect.

I'm not telling that digital negatives as better than in-camera
negatives in terms of detail / sharpness BTW. All I'm saying is what
I'm getting is enough to me, for practical purposes. Taking the fact
that I'm a kinda fastidious person into consideration, if that's
enough for me then it's way enough for my audience methinks. Hint: My
sign is Aries ;)

Regards,
Loris.


2010/4/13 etienne garbaux <photographeur at nerdshack.com>:
> ...
> The limits you mention are where the digineg artifacts should, in theory, be
> equal to the resolution-limiting effects of the process itself.  However,
> the eye can still resolve the artifacts at this level, just as the ear can
> hear "down into the noise," because a process's ability to resolve
> deteriorates gradually rather than falling off a cliff at the limit.  To
> make the artifacts truly invisible, they need to be lower than the process
> limit by a factor of 4-8 (this includes the 2-4 factor discussed below),
> implying a digineg resolution 4-8x greater (ppi) than the process limit.
> ...