Re: Digital vs Analog - Corollary Questions

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: 06/11/00-12:55:14 PM Z


Jeffrey Wrote:

> What you call flat is what your eye sees, which is not what the print
coating sees.
>
> The basic philosophy should be to understand thoroughly the materials
> and processes used independent of whether the negative is digital or
> analog.
>
Jeffrey,

What I am hearing you say is that the PT/PD chemistry responds differently
to a digital negative than to an analog neg - perhaps not exactly, but that
is my inference. Put another way, a digital neg that looks flat will
produce the same results as an analog neg that looks contrasty - I have
trouble with that.

We all know what a well constructed negative looks like (more or less) and
that the
naked eye has the ability to readily discern the difference between a flat
neg and a contrasty neg. A given emulsion can only produce a good print
from a neg with optimum contrast for the particular process, which is
somewhere
in between the two. We're talking at a very base level here.

Given all that, the nagging question remains; "why do we produce a digital
negative flat and an analog neg with contrast"???

And Jeffrey, I would very much like to see the curve you have eluded to for
your HP inkjet.

Nick


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:44 AM Z CST