From: Garet Denise (garet@rmi.net)
Date: 02/24/01-09:20:48 PM Z
I will preface these comments by stating that I have never made a stochastic
negative.
On February 24, 2001 5:01 PM Tod Gangler <artandsoul@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Many shops, all making negs for offset printing, told me that
> proofing and plating stochastic negs was very difficult. Apparently, the
> stochastic negative's small spot size and its tendancy to produce greater
> dot gain means that very good contact in proofing and plate-making is
> required in order to assure accurate tone control.
I think it is very dangerous to make a comparison between results from offset
printing and alt-photo. Heck, look at all the variations within alt-photo!
Offset places a spot of ink on paper. It's all-or-nothing. Ink-or-no-ink.
Yes, I can imagine an offset printer having a rough go of it with a stochastic
negative. But the idea in alt-photo work is that the tiny dots come close to
representing the grain structure in film, No? Printing a stochastic negative on
a continuous tone emulsion should have very different results from an offset
press.
> placement. When the spots are small, like 14 to 20 microns, and the
> contact is not perfect, these graduated tones can look even less smooth.
It would seem like imperfect contact should soften the image and make the
transitions MORE smooth (dot edges less sharp). Seems like the effect would
vary greatly between the different processes, and all the subtle variations
within each (paper surface, emulsion thickness, etc, etc, etc).
> For alt-photo, I've been using stochastic negatives made on an imagesetter
> for 4 color carbon printing. When the digital negative's spots are so
> small and the contact isn't perfect, I've had problems holding those spots
> of gelatin in printing.
Are the stochastic negatives producing a continuous tone image on your gelatin
emulsions? Or are you getting dots?
Garet Denise
Garet@Cornerstone-Inspection.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:40 PM Z CST