From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 09/19/00-05:06:02 PM Z
Jeffrey Mathias wrote:
>
>It is imperative that one consider their final results from the
>materials used before reaching for an unnecessary extreme.
>
>In many cases the sharpness of the final image is limited by the ability
>of the paper surface to render detail. There are indeed many papers,
>when used with the Pt/Pd process, that can render the same detail in the
>final print whether the negative is placed emulsion to coating or
>reversed when using diffuse BL bulbs.
>
>A question should be - how much sharpness is desired in the print; then
>appropriate materials and/or process should be selected. Trade offs may
>have to be made as all one's preferences are considered. And one must
>be disciplined enough to work within the restrictions of the materials
>or be savvy enough to exploit the out-of-the-box scenarios.
>
>--
>Jeffrey D. Mathias
>http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
I don't disagree with any of your remarks. However, in comparing the
question of apparent sharpness between reversed and non-reversed
negatives when printed with diffuse light sources such as BL tubes we
are not talking about extremes. There is in fact a very apparent and
significant loss of sharpness with reversed negatives, though the
actual loss does vary somewhat with the thickness of the negative).
Comparatively speaking I find that the differences in paper surfaces
with regard to apparent sharpness is relatively insignificant when
compared to that of reversing the negative.
These observations are based on my printing experience with carbon,
salted paper and aggyrotype using a number of different paper
surfaces, and they are of a purely technical nature. The question of
how much sharpness is desired in the final print is one more in the
real of individual subjectivity.
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT