>Re: the recent remarks of Johnathan Anderson, Sil Horwitz, and Jack Fulton
>about the cost of digital methods and alternatives to the service bureaus in
>getting digital negatives for alt-processes:
>
..
>
>This applies only to small prints, 4"x5" or less. I have been photographing
>PhotoShopped images directly off my grayscale monitor with B&W sheet film.
>
>About 200 DPI at the final image size is sufficient to get a negative that
>when contact printed is very sharp and has no trace of its digital origin. I
>of course mean "sharp" only in the context of relatively fuzzy alt-photo
>processes, such as Pt/Pd, cyanotype, and gum.
>
>I have a 20" grayscale monitor. For B&W work, this monitor has two
>advantages over a color monitor. First, it costs about 1/3 of what a 20"
>color monitor costs ($700-800 vs -$2000) Second, it is a bit sharper than a
>color monitor. There is one electron gun rather than three, so that the
>individual pixel is one screen spot rather than three and there are no
>convergence problems to fuzz things up.
I use a 21 inch Apple grayscale with a high quality card running it and it
is **much** easier on the eyes compared to any color monitor, for anyone
who spends a lot of hours in front of a monitor.
>My 20" monitor has 1062 x 850 pixels at 4x5 proportions. This gives about
>200 DPI, which is just right for 4"x5" film (actually a little more than 200
>DPI, as image size on the film is really 3.75" x 4 75"). A 15" monitor set at
>8OOx6OO pixel resolution, which is a standard Wintel and Mac setting, would
>give an image size of 3"x4" at 200 DPI. If you don't mind your prints being
>a little less than really sharp, you could probably finesse a 4"x5" negative
>off a 15" monitor.
>
..
>My palladium prints made with this method look **sharp**. For example, hair
>and eye details in a portrait I just finished have the snap one associates
>with regular large-format contact prints made from conventional "analog"
>negatives. Even with a loupe, there is nothing in the print to give a hint
>as to its digital origins. These 4"x5" prints and negatives are in the equal
>of results I've had with digital negatives made for me on a high-end
>imagesetter by Evercolor.
The problem that usually occurs with this kind of statement on the net, is
that it is usually impossible to know how accurate it is. As good as what?
Better than what? These are highly subjective terms. In this case, however,
I happen to have in my collection three gorgeous palladiotypes by Charlie
Palmer, produced from internegs supplied by Evercolor, so I am fully aware
that he knows what he is talking about. I have shown them to many visitors
here and we all agree that they are superb. The screen it totally invisible
to the naked eye and the tonal rendition is perfectly natural. This is good
news as we are witnessing the disappearance of continuous tone negative
films on a regular basis, especially in the larger sizes. We are at a point
where the marriage of digital technology-to-fine-printmaking is invitable
and it is comforting to know that there are viable alternatives.
>And, my initial results with **no** PhotoShop correction curve applied to
>the image look great. This means that if you want to do a little fine tuning
>to match the screen brilliances to the combined needs of the film and your
>printing method, it should be very easy to do.
>
>All of which brings me to a larger issue: In trying to get output through an
>imagesetter, maybe our entire approach to creating digital negatives for
>alt-processes has been fundamentally flawed. Perhaps we should be looking at
>a 4"x5" positive from a high resolution film recorder as our product from the
>service bureau. One could then enlarge this positive onto B&W film for the
>final negative.
To many of my clients in the archival/museum field, I have been
recommending this approach for the past few years. Produce an archival 4x5"
film copy of anything you want to preserve. From that you will be able to
do anything you need for the next several hundred years. The same cannot be
said of any CD-ROMs or floppy discs made today.
Luis Nadeau
awef6t@mis.ca
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.mi.net/dialin/awef6t/