From: Tom Ferguson (tomf2468@pipeline.com)
Date: 03/24/01-12:15:50 PM Z
I still do this (slide to neg) a lot. All of the cyanotype and most of the
gum prints on my web page are 4x5 or 120 transparencies enlarged onto Photo
Warehouse film (FP-4).
Sharpness does suffer a "tiny" bit. For the true 'sharpness nuts", there is
nothing (any enlarged neg or digital capture) that compares to an in camera
neg. I wanted 16x20 prints for this cyanotype series. I own an 11x14
camera. I don't want to own or use a 16x20 ;-)
Enlarged transparencies are sharp enough.
The biggest problem with this system is contrast. Transparencies are high
contrast to begin with. Shot a low (for transparency) contrast film and shot
mid to low contrast scenes. That is easy for me, as 95% of my work is
studio.
I do change the "internal" contrast of a transparency with colored filters
while enlarging onto the FP-4. Just as "in camera", if I have a scene with
a red and green bottle, I can lighten the red bottle by putting a red filter
over the enlarging lens.
-- Tom Ferguson http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> > Subject: Re: Direct negatives from slides > > > > On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Sandy King wrote: >> I can think >> offhand of several clear advantages to the slide>negative route but perhaps >> there are caveats to consider. > > > Tom Ferguson did this a lot, and he, too, is sharpness oriented, so he may > have something to add... but if you want to go larger than 8x10 what film > will you use? To get tone for reds you'd need panchromatic... Is there > much pan sheet film still available in big sizes? > > The advantage of course is one step.... and I recall Tom saying he could > modify contrast with color filters. > > Judy > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST