Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:19:15 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com wrote:
> >>So the quality of the film must be good, and as mentioned, the BETTER the
> >>quality of the film, the WORST it is for us!
>
>
> I do not understand this... I thought the idea was to get the best possible
> materials? I occasionally use high resolution films such as Illfochrome
> Color Microgrraphics Film and it is amazing stuff. Tested archival storage
> life of about 250 years, exceedingly high resolution, virtually no
The point Dave is making is best for one purpose is not best for all. The
films for halftone & imagesetter, etc. are formulated to make the greatest
density dot with the straightest sides. But we want continuous tone at
lower levels, that don't shoot up to log 3 in a twinkling.
Two years ago, I tested Arista el cheapo lith film ($32/100 8x10 sheets)
against Kodalith, costing something like $140 for 100. The Arista won
hands down -- for that purpose. It was MUCH easier to get a continuous
tone that didn't go through the roof. I daresay if you wanted "the best"
for halftone, the Kodak would beat it.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:46