Re: Continuous Tone? (was Re: Pt/Pd vs Gum???) (fwd)


FotoDave@aol.com
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:14:44 -0500 (EST)


In a message dated 1/13/99 9:55:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cor@ruly46.medfac.leidenuniv.nl writes:

> ..probably thought to simple: wouldn't one have "best of both worlds" so
> to speak. To be able to adapt/modify/whatever ones images on the computer
> send it to a filmrecorder as a postive and make the desired large
> negative in the darkroom...

That's what I do when I need computer modification since I also have access to
a nice 8K film recorder, but the reason I had the questions (and somehow came
up with some of my own answers) was I couldn't seem to quite understand why
people made "binary" negatives and then desired the "continous tone" part of
it.

I originally thought they wanted to do that because printing is easier since
your main concern is mostly the dots, but now people are talking about
simulating continuous tone using semi-binary film. Well, to my simple mind, if
one can print and control the continuous tone, one should go with true
continous tone film (from film recorders, for example).

Maybe I think wrong. I think I have strange logic. :-)

Dave



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