Beakman (beakman@netcom.com)
Thu, 01 Apr 1999 07:20:15 -0800 (PST)
> Mark,
>
> I can't verify the superiority of using the Scitex CT file type for
> making photographic negatives, but, wearing my Graphic Designer hat I
> can confirm that a number of first-rate printers and prepress houses use
> this file format in preference to all others for normal four-color
> printing applications. Of course you're looking at a whole different set
> of parameters when "tricking" the imagesetter into making a photographic
> negative, but I wouldn't overlook the possibility that Scitex CT is a
> clever way to go.
>
> ---Carl
Carl,
I've haven't had a chance to try this method but it sounds as though it
may have potential.
On anoter note, I have one of the Lenswork silver gelatin prints made
from their 425lpi digital negs and it looks fantastic. As Dan said, the
benefits derived from using a finer linescreen may be worth a trade-off
in shades of gray, which you may not even notice. As always, the best
way to know is to run a couple of tests for yourself, but based on the
Lenswork print, I think that it's probably worthwhile to go for a 400+
lpi screen. True, I haven't seen the original but Maureen (at Lenswork)
was telling me how their Bullock prints looked identical to the
originals. Even Wynn's widow (?) said that it looks as if Wynn had
printed them himself.
Best regards,
David Fokos
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:29