From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 04/24/02-10:30:44 PM Z
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> ... Judy, your gum print is fun! And
> huge--how did you enlarge your neg? The APHS way? Or digital? Nice bright
> chrome yellow sky.
Christina, thanks so much for the kind words... I think maybe I should
quit while I'm ahead -- that is NOT look at the book. (When is reality as
good as the fantasy?)
As for the negative, that was actually a hodge podge, improvised as I went
along. I began with an 11 by 14 inch but don't remember now whether it was
a black & white print or the negative I made by projecting from the
original 35 mm onto lith film, or oops, come to think of it I could have
scanned the original 35 mm into photo shop... I've done that image in
several sizes and used all those strategies, any of which can work for
gum. I don't mean that old canard about gum can't do detail, but that you
have so much flexibility and control in the printing -- between adding
coats & changing the mix, developing variously & making negatives with
different contrast, you can get whatever.
I was (still am) way back in Photoshop 4, & did the stuff that someone
using a large format camera and zone system theoretically at least could
get in the original... put tone in the sky, brought up contrast in the
faces, sharpened the Chrysler building fading into the mist -- all the
things Photoshop was born for...
I printed the negative on the Epson 1160, but also got a couple of
Imagesetter negatives ... a local place does them for $20 each, but that
was also "experimental." I didn't have the expertise to control the
contrast there (and doubt they did either) so finding the first one too
flat I tweaked the file some more & had a second one made -- which clearly
they output by totally different rules & process, as my changes in the
file became something else in the output. However, the good news is that
the Epson negatives and the Imagesetter negatives were perfectly in
register -- a small miracle, no?
Incidentally the Epson negs were done first in color (highlights came out
blue, shadows black), then black only.... on a heavy vellum paper, which
took the ink nicely, though a bit too thick itself. And of course when you
talk to your inkjet negs & happen to say "prunes" a dot or three of spit
lands & makes a big black blob. You can either print another or print two
the first time around, with one as a spare. I also did a couple of "local"
negatives, for instance one with contrast in the hair goosed up.
But all this was trying to figure out how to do it and improvising as I
went along. I tore up several prints, but this one "came out." If I ever
get back into the studio (that is, serve out my sentence in index hell) I
have some other ideas -- though I must add that I'd hoped that in the
meantime Nick Makris, Keith Gerling et al would have solved those
problems... : (
Meanwhile, the list has been talking about Lightjet, but nobody's
mentioned Scitex. I'd been led to believe that's better -- or was 8
months ago... is it already obsolete??? The point wasn't its greater
resolution (resolution on the Agfa Imagesetter was fine), but presumably
greater contrast control. (Or maybe if you're paying more you just get to
bother them more?)
The imagesetter people never could explain why the ramp I placed next to
the negative that went from 0% to 100% posterized into 21 steps in the
digital file only came out to measure about 1.1 or 1.2 at the densest on
the analog densitometer, though specular highlights in the negative were
higher.
Which is to say, I'd really like to make those negatives "in house," but
with the means at my command at the time, I doubt the print would have
come out as well... :(
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:31 AM Z CST