Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:54:57 -0800
So, now we have Study Prints, Work Prints, and Proof Prints.
Still, to my mind, Proof Prints are saleable.
Any thoughts on this?
SS
-----Original Message-----
From: FotoDave@aol.com <FotoDave@aol.com>
To: cjweese@wtco.net <cjweese@wtco.net>; alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Proofing (Study Prints) for Alt. Process
>> Every time I talk myself into thinking I can read a negative, I just
>> need to make a few proofs to prove I can't.
>
>Carl,
>
>It might be the hight contrast high density and nonlinearity that are
causing
>the difficulty, as I mentioned in my response to Steve. In fact, if all I
read
>about Pt/Pd are right, (how it separates shadows well but not have
highlights
>blown out, it must be nonlinear)....
>
>About a year or two ago I worked with a miscalibrated equipment and it gave
a
>different highlight and shadow contrast, and though it was not alt.
process,
>the way I implemented the temporary proofing solution for that particular
>system (until it was finally properly calibrated) might relate.
>
>They used to make eye judgement with the original negative. The problem
(and
>big frustration) were quite often there were nice separations on the
original
>that were lost in the final print. We also had the reverse problem: there
were
>blemishes whose contrast were so low and not apparent in the original but
>became terrible spots (or textures) on the final print.
>
>I simply did this: I calibrated my silver printing procedures so that I can
>easily get two silver proofs with different exposure and contrast. One is
made
>to match the shadow contrast as best as we can. The other other is to match
>the highlight contrast. With the two study prints (I guess I can't call it
>proofs), I could study the shadow separation and the highlight separation.
>With that, midtones are usually ok in that system, so I didn't have to do a
>separate midtone study. It works very well for me (us). While it might not
be
>100% accurate, the important thing was to study the separation.
>
>I suppose you could do that with Pt/Pd too if you want silver proof. Just
use
>/ make a 4x5 negative with lots of shadow, midtone, and highlight details.
>Attach that with a step tablet. Make a nice Pt/Pd print, then calibrate
your
>silver prints to *visually* match the shadows and highlights.
>
>The only problem that we had was although it worked for us, it was hard to
>tell/convince the clients how the final prints were going to look like by
>showing them 2 prints. :) But I think you were thinking about doing the
>proof for yourself, but in your case, even if it is for a client, I would
>think a photographer who is paying another person to make his Pt/Pd print
must
>be experienced enough to make the judgement by the 2 study prints.
>
>And if I remember correctly, you are using an automatic processor. If you
have
>a 16x20 print drum, then you can easily make the 2 study prints in a single
>run, press a button, and a few minutes later you are ready to make your
>assessment.
>
>And I apologize to you or to the list if this is not related directly to
what
>you were asking and if this is too long.
>
>
>
>Dave
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43