[alt-photo] Fwd: Was New Platinum Prints

[Bob Barnes]

I should have added that I use cold-light light source, but also have  
point-source, and
  condensors, and could get point source.

TIA again,
Bob

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bob Barnes <bb333 at earthlink.net>
> Date: April 13, 2010 3:11:07 PM CDT
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list <alt-photo- 
> process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: Was [alt-photo] New Platinum Prints
>
> I am asking for community help, in spite of the fact I rarely post,  
> really because there are so many
> that have expert knowledge, and are unbelievably generous.
>
> I am asking for advice about about starting wet-plate collodian and  
> Ambrotypes.
> I would appreciate any advice, links, on-list as well as off- 
> list.   I am very interested in printing wet-plate
>  on my  Omega DXL enlarger. I have a 4x5, an 8x10 as well as a  
> large antique studio camera, and I do want advice
> about finding or adapting wooden film holders, but I am very  
> interested in enlarging or digital negs.
> Thanks to you all!
> Bob Barnes
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Loris Medici wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>