Re: For those who are interested in making digital negatives using pigmented inksets

Loris wrote:

> After
>this recent "discovery" I redeveloped an inclination towards digital
>negatives for Van Dyke (because they're much more easy to make - but lith
>negatives still hold the quality advantage).
>

I have compared carefully my own results on the print of the same
image using digital inkjet negatives and original in-camera
negatives. In my opinion in-camera originals offer no advantage at
all with processes where the final print is on an art or drawing
paper, as would be the case with Pt/Pd, kallitype, VDB, etc. In fact,
because of the corrections we able to apply in Photoshop I would even
go so far as to say that the prints from digital negatives are
superior, in some cases remarkably so.

This observation would probably not be true with a process like AZO
where the final image is on a smooth surface. In fact, even with my
carbon images on smooth surfaces I can see a slight superiority to
images made from in-camera negatives, but the difference is very
small indeed.

Bear in mind that I am not talking here about making digital
negatives from 35mm or roll film originals since my originals are
5X7" to 12X20" negatives and in no case am I enlarging beyond a
scanning figure of 360dpi at the printing size. Also, my comparison
is based on 16 bit scans and keeping the file in 16 bit throughout
any work in Photoshop.

I am aware of the fact that some on this list will never agree with
the concept that an enlarged negative, digital or otherwise, could
ever give better results than an original in-camera negative. But you
now know my opinion, and I am sticking with it.

Sandy King
Received on Wed Dec 31 13:45:50 2003