>for me to generate digital negatives with correct tones), but my opinion is
>that a dot is a dot is a dot. One can use it to quickly generate some
>negatives for some processes but dots cannot provide the relief that a
>carbon print made from continous-tone negative has.
There is no such thing as true "continuous tone" - every image, regardless
of process, is made up of particles of opaque material in a clear or
translucent matrix. To the argument that "a dot is a dot" - modern printers
dither, and provide a pseudo-random pattern, much like the semi-random
pattern of silver and other opaque particles obtained in chemical methods.
I say "semi-random" because the emulsion engineers now have the capability
of placing silver crystals in specific areas of negative and print layers,
using the highly technical crystal techniques begun with the T-crystal
regimen. What Luis says about the nature of modern color prints made with
computer printers is that the eye finds it difficult to differentiate. This
is particularly true in many alt-processes, where the images are imbedded
in the paper base, and the paper surface limits the apparent resolution.
All of this is academic, anyway, as we are on the threshold of a technique
that is introducing yet another method of photographic imaging. As was
stated in a previous message, the method of preparing art is secondary to
the result as perceived by the viewer. The major obstacle at present (and
one shared by many "painterly" art materials and chemically produced
photographs as well) is the permanence of the images. The use of an
impermanent negative to produce a permanent final result is, to me, a
satisfactory solution.
Sil Horwitz, FPSA
Technical Editor, PSA Journal
silh@iag.net
Visit http://www.psa-photo.org/