From: Deborah Ford (azdford@mindspring.com)
Date: 09/17/02-09:45:04 AM Z
on 9/17/02 5:14 AM, Shannon Stoney at sstoney@pdq.net wrote:
> I am getting ready to make some polymer photogravures. At the print
> shop where I'm working, the other people send their negatives to an
> imagesetting place to be scanned and then put on film. The results
> are very good, but it's rather expensive. I am wondering if there is
> a way to do this in a less expensive way. One possibility is to scan
> the negatives myself on the flat bed scanner in this shop and try to
> print them out on pictorico film or some such. But my previous
> attempts to make digital negatives (in this case it would be a
> positive) were not good due to banding with the printers I had
> available to me.
>
> So I am wondering about making film positives directly. If you have
> an 8x10 negative, say, couldn't you contact print it onto another
> piece of the same film? Some of the negatives I want to use are 4x5;
> I could make smaller prints of those, or possibly get access to an
> enlarger and enlarge them onto film. But let's say you're contact
> printing an 8x10 negative to make a film positive. If you use another
> sheet of Tri X for the positive, it will be very fast, so the
> exposure will have to be very fast. If you are exposing with a 7 1/2
> watt lightbulb, I think it would be hard to get the exposure short
> enough. Am I correct to worry about this?
>
> Anyway, I'm interested in hearing about how other people resolved
> this. In a way, it's just an issue of making a copy negative, or an
> enlarged negative, except that it's a positive; but then also there's
> the fact that the photopolymer plates probably have different curves
> from other processes, and I don't know yet what they are.
>
> --shannon
Check Dan Burkeholder's book on digital negative making. It is very thorough
with different possibilities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST