bmaxey1@juno.com
Date: 05/13/01-05:03:09 PM Z
>>I don't know where you getting your information, but if this were true
>>(with image setter film Negs) the entire printing industry would
crumble.
>>Consistency is paramount with this technology. If you are referring to
>>ink jet Negs, produced by Epson or other brand desktop printers, ok.
>>BUT, this isn't the only type of digital Negs. available, but it is the
cheapest.
It was assumed - at least by me, that we were talking about the tools
available to most on this list, not things like image setters. I
understand consistency, but again, I was talking about the average
person. NO ONE on this list using their simple equipment can produce
truly consistent digital negatives from month to month. It is the nature
of the equipment. I agree this might be possible with high end equipment.
Yes, you can make matched prints - 10 or a million, but even with an
image setter, I'll bet there will be changes should you need to have
another negative made months later. Granted, small ones.
And YES, I can make large editions that can be hard to distinguish. I
will agree that chemicals change and with the limitations of chemistry
from batch to batch, there will be some differences. This can't be
helped. But I can easily match what I did before using my guide prints.
Perfect match? No way, I'll give you this.
Yes, I use an image setter; or at least have the nuts and bolts done by a
printer who uses one. I produce many catalogs each year, and I the
quality is hard to argue against. But few people can or will use them
because of costs, fewer will purchase one.
I will also admit that for catalogs, high resolution is not required.
>>The ability to experiment electronically, BEFORE committing to film is
>>an aid which I'd argue saves tremendous time, creative energy (for me
>>the most precious commodity), and money. For photomontage, nothing
>>equals the computer. The ability to control transparency amongst
>>multiple layers of imagery is an awesome if not impossible task
>>conventionally. This is an argument of degrees of difficulty. Without a
>>computer, compromises are determined by the materials -- in this case
>>the film and darkroom tools. I won't except that limitation when I KNOW
>>what the computer will allow me (the artist me) to produce.
Surprisingly, I agree. No doubt it is faster. If I had to manually layout
a page, use rubber cement and other tools, I would be in trouble. My time
is valuable to me, as yours is to you. Electronic layout is certainly
faster.
>>What is funny (to me) is the situation I find my self in as a teacher.
I
>>must know how to use analog (real film) techniques to teach these
>>processes to students. We don't have an image setter or easy and cheap
>>access to one here, so I must teach students how to achieve good
results
>>the "old" way (your words, not mine).
And I applaud you for letting your students know that digital is not the
be all end all to photography. It is an ever encroaching aspect to
creating images.
>To push them to use only digital
>>methods might seem ideal, but it would be unethical to give them a
>>narrow approach. I teach them both ways, which allows both the choice
>>and the knowledge there are variable access points.
I disagree. There is digital and conventional methods. I think it is a
mistake to try to combine both except at a very basic level. As a
teacher, I will assume that you understand that the techniques are vastly
different on many levels, and one takes longer to teach. No offence, but
digital is easier than silver techniques in many ways. There are
similarities; composition, lighting, etc. I could fill a few teaching
sessions just with reduction and intensification.
I used to teach darkroom work at the Salt Lake Art Center, so I do have
photographic teaching experience. All before the digital age, all before
Microsoft and all before there was a PC. First class was a basic
introduction covering how silver halides work. I then went on to teach
them about basic film developing - sheet and roll film, dealing with
problem negatives - when to and not to reduce and/or intensify, basic
print making, care and adjustment of enlargers and contact printers,
black and white from color negatives, mixing chemicals, safety, dodging
and burning, selecting paper grades and reading negatives, basic
processing for archival storage- before the term was used as much as it
is now. Toning, masking, selecting the proper developers for the
materials, printing the large print, finishing and retouching using
simple airbrush techniques as well as using spotting colors.
I assume your class is similar.
>>The error in this scenario is knowing what resolution is needed to
>>exceed the size of film grain. If your resolution is sufficient to make
>>marks on the film which will not be seen as anything but film grain,
you
>>have enough resolution. A 72mb file will produce a "film resolution"
>>digital original 4X5 TMAX 100 negative. For lith film, the demands are
>>even less. My 11X14 image setter negatives are around 30mb. This isn't
>>difficult for most computers to handle. Dan's book spells this out very
>>well. In short, full resolution isn't what the scanner can produce, but
>>what you need to replicate film grain size.
I agree to some extent. I agree that not all situations require full
resolution - I will give you that. As I said, I am forced into using a
smaller resolution every day. However, when I want large prints. I have
yet to see a digital negative that can equal my 11 x 14's. As a matter of
fact, I just photographed a restored Fire Engine. Using 8 x 20, and the
negatives will eventually be printed mural size. I am not sure that you
can't digitally give me what was demanded. AND THAT IS NOT A SHOT AT YOU,
so do not flame me. You found something that works for you. Your digital
interpretation of the same subject might be good and might be smaller in
resolution because you feel what you end up with is just high enough.
> With film, I have what I need in the negative with no scanning or
fooling
> around. It is at high resolution.
>
>Yes. But is it at the size you need? This is point where to use (or not)
>digital methods seems to be decided.
But why decide in the first place? Once I have a negative, I do not have
to worry about resolution and file size. Suppose I wanted to produce a
digital negative from a Cirkit Negative. Are you telling a digital
negative measuring would work as well? I do not think it would.
I SAID: > This can be argued that I do not need full resolution, but why
bother in
> the first place if I cant easily use my wonder computer.
>
YOU SAID>>I don't quite understand the point here. I guess ease is in the
eye of
>>the creator.
My point is that if I want full resolution; regardless of the use the
image will be put to, I can't use full resolution because of my equipment
limitations. Granted, I might not need it, but it makes little sense to
me to have a system I cant easily use. IT is a purely technical
consideration. With film I do not have these worries.
B.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST