From: Jalo Porkkala (jalo.porkkala@luukku.com)
Date: 10/16/01-12:28:07 AM Z
Nick,
Yes I've heard Lightjet negs should be superior, but my students have
been practising making negatives by desktop work, so that they can
apply their own curves and adjustment layers in photoshop and
determining the correct contrast for different processes, etc.(I
guess all this can be made to work wit LJ negs also).
On the other hand, the difference between Epson inkjets and Lightjets
shouldn't be so great after all, or? I paste here a statement by
Michael H. Reichmann (found on the net):
"The next critical question is, did the Epson print look like any
different than the LightJet in terms of apparent resolution, dot
visibility or other artifacts? The answer is a loud and resounding
NO! Even though the LightJet print is a true continuous-tone
photographic print and the Epson Photo 1200 is a dot-based inkjet
there is absolutely no apparent difference to the unaided eye at any
viewing distance. Even through a 3-power Rodenstock Aspherical Lupe
very little difference can be seen."
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/lightjet_vs_inkjet.htm)
Of course this might not be valid with our older Epson 3000; the
output is much smoother with newer generation Epsons.
Nick Makris kirjoitti 15.10.2001 kello 22:59
> Jalo, With regard to the BLF base+fog affecting exposure times,
consider the
> following:
>
> Lightjet negs are digital images on positive photographic film
(don't know
> whose/which film) and the negs look like traditional B&W negs,
except for
> the black border. As I said, my use of these negs has produced my
best
> PT/PD prints. That being said, my exposures to prints via this
film/neg are
> in the neighborhood of 3.5 minutes.
>
> That's the same exposure (+/-) that I am using for my test of BLF.
>
> Nick
...............................................
Oma sähköposti aina käytössä! http://luukku.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST