From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/23/02-02:26:44 PM Z
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 Ender100@aol.com wrote:
> When you say you can get 5 steps now, is that 5 Stouffer steps? heheheh
> Seriously, if so, then that may tell you what your maximum useable density is
> on the digital steptablet, if they are translateable. I am not sure yet they
> are.
Yes, that's on the Stouffer. But I'm aiming for a "curve" with about 8
steps of same size, because I like a negative with some give in it, to
have room for subsequent coats, long soaks, etc. I've managed by
improvising to get a step tablet on the Epson with 8 steps both to the eye
and to the densitometer, tho I realize that's not necessarily going to be
the same by UV light.
If it is, then I gather I "transfer" those numbers to a curve -- tho I
don't like idea of counting on Epson printer dialog which is where it
seems you're supposed to do that. I want a freestanding curve to name,
file & load in Photoshop forevermore -- one less weak link, seems to me.
TBC.
Judy
>
> For example, if the maximum density on the Stouffer's is 3.0 AND I was able
> to get a max density of 3.0 with my pigment inks on Pictorico, then I should
> be able to print a steptablet that is identical to the Stouffer's.
> Theoretically, they should print the same on about any process. However,
> since they are different materials, and might block UV differently, perhaps
> they would not have the same effective density. Anyone have an idea on this?
> It's something I want to test when I get my NUARC unpacked. I wonder too if
> pigment inks block UV differently than dye inks?
>
> Maybe there is a holy grail of Alt Photo..... The UV adjustment curve that
> works for all processes! heheeheh probably not, but I would think tBoy, we
> owe a lot to Dan, he's done a lot of work for everyone. If people don't have
> his book, they should get it, if they are trying digital negatives.
>
> One last thought on all this. Imagesetter images work differently from
> silver negatives, in that they print halftone. Except for Dan's spectral
> negatives, I think perhaps inkjet negatives workt he same, since they are
> either dots or spaces. So perhaps these negatives behave a tad bit
> differently than traditional negatives?
>
> Mark Nelson
>
>
> In a message dated 9/21/02 11:37:12 PM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
>
> << > I think the only readings you really need to take are reflective
> readings on
> > the final print of your steptablet using whatever process (gum, platinum,
> > etc) that you are using.
>
> Frankly, I can't figure how I'd do that for gum -- because there is no
> absolute: not like I had, say, a platinum emulsion, and did a curve to
> make it behave. A reflective reading from a gum step tablet would only be
> for that particular amount of pigment, color, ratio of dichromate to gum,
> & length & type of soak... but these tend to vary by layer, paper, whim,
> image, and available temperature.
>
> I'd like a curve that would just print, say 8 differentiated steps. I
> could get the 5 or 6 steps that's the average for average gum emulsion &
> development, with range left over to fill in with subsequent colors.
>
> Any ideas what could do that, or is that the part I've got to figure out
> myself?
>
> Meanwhile, I DID get Dan's curves on the desktop by pressing option key --
> hoo ha !-- with many thanks to digital mavens in this crew. But Dan --
> where was the "gum curve"? I opened every one that looked possible, but
> the only one that seemed at all possible was the cyanotype curve, which I
> loaded & will try.
>
> Interestingly, it was somewhat like the curve on all my 4 tests so far.
> It turned out (which is why actually charting curves is such a revelation,
> at least around here) that even though the NUMBERS of the high part looked
> very different for each material, the rest of the curve was quite similar.
>
> The section with the first 5 (densest) steps ranged from very steep to
> practically vertical, but after that the 4 materials were just about
> parallel to each other and virtually flat.
>
> Very curious.
>
> TBC. thanks again so far.
>
> Judy >>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:10 PM Z CST