Dave also said that 'a dot is a dot'.
There has been much jargon and overcomplication in this thread much of
which has been of the' how many angels can dance on a pinhead' genre.
The point remains that gum seems to accept the finer and more 'random' dot
of the Epson print out but it would not accept the coarser regular dot of
commercial scans that I had made over twelve years ago.
As a recent thread on bubble jet prints made it clear. one can make
beautiful prints that may only last for a limited period but then can be
printed out again at minimal cost. The same applies to paper negatives.
As I explained the other day it is so simple and easy to produce an
interneg from the printer using Photoshop that, it seems to be pointless
to use wet processes unless one is some kind of purist masochist or that
there are other constraints such as size.
When I made Epson paper internegs for gum printing I used separate negs for
the shadows mid tones and highlights. This reflected the exigencies of the
process. I would go along with Luis that a carbon or platinun or other
process requiring a negative with a long range of tone with fine gradation
and fine detail in the highlights and in the shadows would probably not
print from a single paper neg as the densities required for highlights
would clog up and detail and gradation would be lost. I would certainly be
interested to hear of practical experience to the contrary.
Terry king.