Lightjet output IS an exciting option for enlarged negatives. There are
still a few things to consider when deciding which way to go. Let me take
Nick's points one at a time:
>Regarding costs of Light Jet negs, my sense is that the difference is less
>than 1.5X the imagesetter negs.
My last 22 x 25 imagesetter negs cost $27.00. Lightjet output here in
Dallas costs $148 for that same size negative. That makes the Lightjet
negs over five (5) times as expensive. Of course, if you live in an area
that's giving you great quotes on Lightjet and lousy quotes on
Imagesetter film, then you can fudge these figures a bit. That $20 for an
8 x 10 Lightjet is very good. Most labs are higher and many of them
charge as much as 50% extra for output on DuraClear material (what you'd
want for negatives) since the demand is so small and it requires
recalibration of the equipment when they switch materials. Make sure when
you ask for a price that it's the DuraClear they're quoting and not the
"normal" color print material.
>Moreover, you can take a 300DPI image of say 8X10 size and the Light Jet can
>successfully interpolate it into a 16X20 or larger image and the continuous
>tone will still be there. >In fact, you don't have to send anything greater
>than 400DPI for any size image.
Yes, the enlarged Lightjet will still be "continuous tone," but that's
not the same as being "sharp and photo-realistic," a problem shared by
all output devices. Though the Lightjet has some neat proprietary
interpolation schemes on board (the way it invents pixels that aren't in
your image in the first place) there are still very real limits on how
large you can take a digital file before it starts to look bad. For
instance, I use Genuine Fractals software (instead of Photoshop's Bicubic
method) whenever I have to interpolate an image, because Genuine Fractals
retains more of a "real, photographic" look and feel in the enlarged
image. It's not magic, however, and there are still definite limits. To
suggest that a 400 dpi image can be taken to "any size" is neither good
imaging nor good science. I'm not saying the Lightjet can't do modest
enlargement and still make a fine image; you just have to watch the sales
pitches from lab personnel who have unbridled enthusiasm for their newest
toys.
> And the good thing is what you see is what
>you get - no special instructions to the service bureau are required. If
>your monitor and printer are in concert and you like what you see from your
>printer, then you will love what you see from a Light Jet.
YES! This is the beauty of a device that's intended to output
photographic images. Keep in mind that when making negatives on a
Lightjet, the output will be a "standard" negative that will probably not
have ideal contrast for platinum printing. Most likely you'll still want
to tweak the curve in Photoshop before sending your TIFF to the lab. You
certainly WON'T have to apply a giant contrast adjustment like you do for
imagesetter output because the latter is intended for "burning" offset
printing plates which have very different contrast requirements.
Some good news for those considering Lightjet output: I've conducted
"informal" tests to see how the Lightjet material holds up under extended
high-intensity UV output. After approximately 100 "normal platinum print"
exposures, there is no evidence of fading in the Lightjet material. Of
course, the type and BRAND of material used in the Lightjet will have a
major effect on its life. (By the way, I've never noticed any imagesetter
negative fading either.)
That being said, the real excitement is what we can do on our desktops.
You just KNOW Epson could produce a "Stylus Negative Maker" for $250 if
there were a market for such hardware! But since they aren't going to do
that, we still have to "cheat" in terms of material and image adjustments
to make desktop negatives. But even with today's hardware, we can do some
amazing stuff on inkjet printers. I've even shipped platinum prints from
inkjet negatives to galleries who never guessed the prints were made from
$0.75 negatives! (Technical note: these were on Espon Transparency Film
using a colorized ink to build spectral density. This technique works
better for low-key images owing to the lower amount of ink that goes onto
the film.)
For most images, either Lightjet or imagesetter output still offers
better quality than inkjet negatives. But that's going to change in the
near future as the desktop hardware improves. Last month I did a
"visiting artist" gig in Florida during which we scanned a students
silver print, output an 8 x 10 negative on Epson transparency film and
printed it on hand-coated platinum. One scan, one negative, one exciting
platinum print, and all in just minutes! It helps maintain the thrill of
imagemaking when you aren't saddled with the delays of schlepping digital
files and film back and forth to a photo lab or service bureau. For those
in education, where the challenge of maintaining a link between the
computer and traditional darkroom is particularly vexing, inkjet
negatives are nothing short of imaging Nirvana.
Hope this helps!
Dan
Dan Burkholder
P.O. Box 111877
Carrollton, TX 75011-1877
USA
972-242-9819
fax 972-242-9651
danphoto@aol.com
www.danburkholder.com
Author of the book nobody should be without:
"Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing."
State Motto: Don't squat with your spurs on.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48