[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
> At 12:01 AM -0500 3/22/00, Jeffrey D. Mathias wrote:
>
>>My main purpose for a digital negative is to accomplish the results of
>>masking I have done by analog methods. To this end the manipulation of
>>various curves (highlights, shadows, and mid tones) is of prime
>>importance. The greatest advantage of the use of digital is that steps
>>or decisions can be reversed or called back with a click. By analog,
>>once something is done, one must start over to change it.
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> If I may extend this thread to masking a bit: you know how some
> people use wax paper and pencil to make a hand drawn mask for contact
> printing? How about making such a mask with the computer to lay over
> the original negative in making any sort of contact prints? It seems
> to me that using a digital mask to "help" an analog negative has a
> lot of potentials, at least until "desktop digital negatives" gets
> much better. Also, the authentic nature of the camera negative will
> not be lost. I wonder if you or anyone else has done that?
>
> Sam Wang
This is utterly fascinating, a great thread.
Printing in gum I used to cut out masks of frosted mylar or rubylith and
place them on top of the plate glass of my contact frame while my pinhole
negative was exposing. I am just on the verge of making my first digital
masks. Already I've printed some layers of a gum print from the Tri-X
negative and some from a digital negative on inkjet transparency film. I
haven't had the size difference problem that Judy had, probably because
tight registration was not required with a soft pinhole image. I plan to
read again this entire thread and to try to comprehend all the bright ideas.
Thanks for sharing.
Sarah Van Keuren