From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: 05/14/00-04:31:19 PM Z
John,
I have used Colour Concepts in Las Vegas - Contact Carl Volk. I would
suggest you make a determination about resolution before you even think
about running a test. I was lead to believe this machine could produce
continuous tone from a scan at 360DPI or greater. I received my test and
the negs were very good but you could see the lines @ 8X (very fine lines
but lines none the less). This came as somewhat of a surprise since I had
seen a sample of what I would characterize as continuous tone from a scanned
image. I was lead to believe this same output was available from a 360DPI
scan. Caveat Emptor.
http://www.colourconcepts.com/lightjet.htm
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: John Richardson <jrplatinum@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 2:03 PM
Subject: Lightjet 5000
> Who is anyone on the list using for lightjet output? EPS/Muse-X here in
Los
> Angeles is no longer offering the service, and I am in the middle of
printing a
> portfolio for another photographer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Richardson
>
> Nick Makris wrote:
>
> > My thanks to Judy, Kerik, Eric, Carl and Jeffrey for their input to
> > resolution/tonal seperation problem I'm having with my recent prints.
Some
> > clarification is required here.
> >
> > First, let me say the problem is very subtle and that the negatives
(8X10)
> > I'm using are digital negs from a Lightjet. The one in particular,
contains
> > detail in both the shadows and the highlights and I have previously had
> > better results from this neg. and in conjunction with the print frame I
have
> > been using.
> >
> > This leads me back to the Ferric Oxalate change that I made recently,
where
> > I am now using a one solution formula with no Potasium Chlorate. In
mixing
> > the sensitiser, I am using equal arts of FO and PT/PD with one drop of
H202
> > (3% drugstore variety undiluted).
> >
> > The negs can be printed for either the highlights or the shadows but not
for
> > both and some confusion exists herein about which way to proceed. My
> > preference is to print these negs as they exist and to change my coating
> > solution to include or not include something as opposed to changing my
negs
> > or my developer. After researching the my archives I found that either
> > Postassium Chlorate, Potassium Dichromate, Ammonium Dichromate or H202
in
> > various strengths may produce the desired results, but I don't have a
clue.
> >
> > The key here is that these negs seem to have a contrast range that is
> > greater than what my procedure will print, but contain detail where I
expect
> > to see detail.
> >
> > It could be that the addition of H202 (which I was using previously with
> > success) is adding unneed contrast. I would have thought that with no
> > Postassium Chlorate I would have needed some additional contrast.
> >
> > Some direction along these lines will be *very much appreciated*.
> >
> > As for differentiating between tonal seperation and resolution - I also
have
> > a hard time with that. These negs seems to have good resolution and
tonal
> > seperation at both ends, however, I would be hard put to describe the
> > difference between them except to say that I am able to see differences
> > within the same tonal range.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Nick
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:19 PM Z CST