Carl Weese (cjweese@wtco.net)
Fri, 09 Apr 1999 08:35:39 -0500
Bill,
Just to support your point from my (too many) years of commercial
photography for reproduction: I always found it essential for decent
reproduction from b&w in the mechanical process camera days to provide a
print _bigger_ than the final intended reproduction in the book or
magazine. This was to get presentable results in mass-produced offset
lithography. To copy a print and make a fancy print in another medium
would almost necessarily call for the first print to be bigger than the
final. Enlarging from a print would be useful only if the esthetic goal
were to play with all the defects and artifacts of printmaking that
occur in the first generation. In graphic reproduction, any increase in
generations is bad unless the goal is to emphasis those
artifacts.---Carl
PS: Replacing process cameras with scanners doesn't fix this, it just
introduces another medium into the generation sequence as somebody uses
digital tools to try to fix the natural artifacts of the
intergenerational print.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:30