From: Richard Morris (Richard.Morris@brunel.ac.uk)
Date: 01/18/01-03:49:48 AM Z
My apologies for a garbled message. I have a new computer and the keyboard
touch is extremely light, so the slightest touch does things it should not.
What I intended to add to my note about digital negs was that it is so
easy to manipulate the neg if it is not quite right, and far cheaper than
conventional methods. I use the standard black ink Epson cartridge.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:19:34 +0000 (GMT) Richard Morris
<Richard.Morris@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
> I have made some very good paper negs, using Epsons own matt paper, not the
> new heavyweight, and then made salt prints. The results have all the detail
> one could wish and look just like the originals. The befeits of doing it
> this way is that you can tweak image very quickly to make a bet
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:57:05 -0500 James Romeo <jamesromeo@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Most of us at one time in our photo work we have made paper neg.
> > I was wondering if eny one out there has every worked with a enlarged neg
> > made digital?
> > It would be easy to make as it is paper and you should not have the problem
> > with the ink you have with a film base in your pinter.
> > All of digital,photoshop and my new imac are new to me. I wjust thought
> > about it today as I made some digital prints.
> > It might work for some alt-pross.
> > Cranes kid finish stationary makes a nice print and cheep. I would not work
> > for a neg as it has a water mark.
> > Let me knoe eny thoughts on the paper neg.
> > Take care
> > James
> >
>
> Richard Morris
> Brunel University, UK
> dtsrrlm@brunel.ac.uk
>
Richard Morris
Brunel University, UK
dtsrrlm@brunel.ac.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/05/01-11:45:22 AM Z CST