Charles Steinmetz (csteinmetz@redneck.efga.org)
Mon, 05 Apr 1999 04:38:36 +0000
Jewelia wrote:
>so anyway--charles--i am intrigued about talking differences in result from
>various light sources--just skeptical that the why is all that simplistic
>and important--
The "overall" why of the look (or, the "why" of the overall look) of a print
is very complex and responds to so many variables that they are hard, if not
impossible, to correlate. Little "whys," however, are capable of resolution.
I'm not talking about the overall look of a print -- I'm talking about one,
discrete aspect of the look, which is caused by light undercutting the
negative image and blurring fine details. This is not simplistic, it is
simply one cause-effect relationship we can corroborate. It is important
if we want to be able to control our processes so that we can get at least
part of the results we want by design rather than by accident.
I'm not pointing out anything revolutionary here -- just that the light
undercutting from a light bank prevents the sharpness that some of us want
to achieve and of which at least some of the alt processes, contrary to
much received wisdom, are capable.
By the way, as far as experimental design is concerned, extra mylar is
not necessary -- simply flipping a negative over and printing through
the base produces the same effect without any change in the spectral
composition or intensity of the light. The softening and blurring of
detail is not just pronounced, but startling, if you do this with glass
plates, because they are so thick.
>fourescents are the way to go--you can adjust enough other
>things to make what you want.
No, you can't, if what you want is to see every little detail in the
negative on the print. The sharpness of detail you lose with the light
bank cannot be regained. It can, however, be minimized by not using a
mylar barrier layer to protect the negative from the sensitizer and by
using a vacuum frame or other means to assure positive contact between
the negative and paper.
Now, many people don't care about reproducing this level of detail in
their prints (and a sizeable minority find it positively irritating).
For them, the light bank loses nothing of value at worst, and may give
them results they prefer. They shouldn't worry that they're missing
anything important to them. But for those who want maximum detail,
the light bank is a sacrifice, particularly so if they insist on
using a barrier layer.
Best regards,
Charles
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:30