From: Neal Oshima (noshima@evoserve.com)
Date: 12/09/01-10:30:25 PM Z
Judy,
I know it sounds contradictory, but there is delicate texture and embroidery
that only appears with a point light source. Otherwise, there's just not
enough for the eye to latch on to. I find that without this level of detail
the prints don't have the same presence.
Along this string, I've also been doing x-rays of various non-medical
subjects and have been trying to increase sharpness. Clearly, moving the
x-ray source away from the plate helps but I've taken it as far as I can and
would like to get an even sharper image. I am wondering if the plate holder
has any effect on the sharpness. Or if strength of voltage versus length of
exposure is relevant. If anyone has experience with radiology, I would
appreciate their advice.
Don't know what HMI stands for (its something that Osram came up with) but
they are the lights that have replaced tungsten and quartz in the film and
television lighting, being brighter (more efficient), cooler and daylight
balanced. The lamphead typically has a separate ballast. They are
frightfully expensive.
Neal
> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:46:19 -0500 (EST)
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: UV Article
>
> Neal, I'm NOT being sarcastic.... I think there's an interesting point
> here, which I have an inkling of, but ask the artist: You're exposing
> through "diaphanous textiles," but looking for ultimate sharp ????
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST