FotoDave@aol.com
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:21:58 -0500 (EST)
Me 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!
Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com writes:
> I do not understand this... I thought the idea was to get the best possible
> materials?
I was half joking, and the statement that I said was not a general statement.
It was about using lith film for continuous tone. For the desired quality of
lith film is opposite to what we need for continous-tone. The lower-quality
one relax the requirement a little (lower Dmax, longer exposure range etc.) so
it works best for us.
I must point out to the list, however, that lith film is not a bad film. Its
resolving power must be high in order to resolve fine dots. Its speed must be
consistent (at least from piece to piece within a box, otherwise halftoning
cannot be done at all). It is not bad at all. The only quality that is not so
good is that the exposure range is rather short compared to a camera film, but
most of our original negatives are not that contrasty anyway.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:46