Pt/Pd vs Gum???


FotoDave@aol.com
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:35:56 -0500 (EST)


I know some of you are probably thinking that this fotodave must be crazy
comparing Pt/Pd to gum and saying that there was no reason to do Pt/Pd
because one could get the same thing in gum. Well, actually that was NOT what
I said. :-)

I was saying that if one uses digital negative and shorten the scale of Pt/Pd
to make nice dots, then they seem not to use the advantage of Pt/Pd as having
long scale. If that is the case, it seems like gum can give the same result.

But I do understand the reason for confusion. One thing is people tend to
think that as resolution gets higher and higher and higher to a point that you
can't see the dots with naked eye or say with a 8x loupe, you get a continous-
tone negative. Well, you don't. You still get a negative with all the dots,
except that they are so fine that you cannot see them.

Well, if you can't see them, does it really matter whether you call it digital
or continous-tone? For the final print and for the person looking at the
prints, it doesn't matter. You can call it continous tone. But for us, the
persons making the prints, it matters, because it determines how you can
successfully print the negative.

Just think of a chess board with high Dmax and clear area. Now shrink the
checker board into 1/2 its size. It still has the clear area and the Dmax
area. Shrink it 100 times, it still has the clear area and the Dmax area. If
it is 50% covered, it should have a density of 0.30, but it is NOT the same as
a continous-tone negative with a density of 0.30. A clear understanding of
this will help you a lot in succesfully printing a digital negative.

And if you don't believe me, one day you will. :)

Dave



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41