From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: 10/12/01-06:36:13 PM Z
Let me preface the following with "it applies specifically to Pt/Pd images
and generally to other processes".
I recently have subscribed to two other lists (for various reasons) and at
the same time, as I have reported here, I have been trying to finalize my
use of an inkjet printer for the purpose of making digital negs.
Many on this list will recall that I have touted certain papers for this
purpose and I recall the discussions regarding many different media; velum
comes to mind among others. After exhaustive testing of many different
media, I must retract any statement you have heard me make regarding success
with these media, heretofore with the excepton noted below.
The truth in this regard comes from the multitudes prints of a step tablet
that I have printed on these media. It turns out that any paper (that I
tested) that one subsequently adds mineral oil or paraffin to, in order to
cause it to be more translucent, will generate a negative that is more flat
(lacks contrast) than that which may be required. Moreso, I have seen the
grain of these papers affect both the contrast and clarity of the resulting
image.
I have yet to test Pictorico OHP film (if someone has a roll of it I'll be
glad to test it similarly and pay for the cost per sqft plus shipping).
However, I did make wonderful, clear, sharp, good blacks, clear highlights
and separated midtones with a film I have spoken of previously, Epson
Backlight Film. I know this doesn't come in sizes large enough for some of
you - A3 (11.7"X16.5"), but for the moment, it works for me. I would like
to test the Pictorico though.
You can not trust the output of a positive image to any media and judge the
result based on your assessment of the reflected image. YOU MUST PRINT THE
NEGATIVE IMAGE - only that image will allow you to judge the results. Your
results must contain separation between all levels of output - if it doesn't
or if you don't notice it, SOMEONE WILL.
The other generalization, I would like to make is as follows:
Each photographer/computer operator who has a particular version of
Photoshop, a particular printer with its own set of peculiarities, a
particular set of inks, a particular monitor and most of all a particular
media, MUST CREATE A CURVE OR SOME OTHER METHOD OF SYNTHSIZING THE OUTPUT TO
THE PRINTER - ONE CURVE FOR EACH MEDIA OR VARIATION. This means that your
set of circumstances is probably unique. It also means that no two papers
will react the same - even from batch to batch.
On one other list (I only feel at home on this list) there has been a
lengthy discussion about monitor, ink, printer and scanner profiles - both
home and proffesionally grown. It boils down to; 1) the process is fraught
with grief, 2) is touted to be useful for portabilty purposes, but it mostly
doesn't work, and 3) can't possibly take into account the nuances of all the
pieces that make up your system.
The moral of the story - TEST, TEST, TEST.
My 2 cents.
Nick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST