From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 06/08/03-02:51:37 PM Z
OK, this is how I got screwed up. I got the brand names mixed; the Epson
backlight does not work and the Kodak does...I had it written in two dif
places that it did and it didn't work, according to Dan B. my notes said.
That's why I must have been having difficulty.
Thanx Katharine, Judy, Nick, for replying, and I do have the PF #8 but it
happens to be packed in my car too deep to dig out.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: "Alt list" <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:49 PM
Subject: digital negs & Epson backlight film
>
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Nick Makris wrote:
>
> > Judy S has a very interesting article the most recent edition of Post
> > Factory (#8?) where a huge collection of info on this subject is
synopsized.
> > It is very much worth the read, as other, more advantageous alternatives
are
> > discussed. If you happen to stumble onto the holy grail in your search,
be
> > sure to let us know.
>
> Thanks for plug, Nick -- and let me add that Dan's book is, as I wrote,
> the bible of the topic & Dan our "knight in charming armor." Everybody
> should have that book. However my "Advice from a Beginner" does, I think,
> fill a gap, or several -- as in charting your own curve. In my experience
> of the emulsions and the digital negs for the emulsions, nobody else's
> curve is going to match your combo of materials & equipment.
>
> Of course they say you have to "tweak" the ready-made curves yourself...
> but I found that more trouble than making my own -- and anyway learned to
> TRUST NOBODY ELSE'S curve. However, no book and no article, or none I
> could find, actually tells you "How to Chart a Curve." I got to that by a
> lot of wasted time, and a lot of trial and error -- tho it seems obvious
> by hindsight. The method is shown & described.
>
> (In retrospect, reviewing this list's thread on the topic, I noticed a
> couple of folks mentioning their "100 step tables," tho it so happened
> that no one elaborated on the point... hmmm !!! I cut my table to 50
> steps -- half the trouble, & it worked just fine.)
>
> Plus Dan's book is pretty much geared to getting your negatives by
> Imagesetter & Service Bureau, which I flunked. It wasn't just the two
> round trips, it was also the fact that each time they seemed to have
> different settings and a different operator. (I know you're supposed to
> set up a relationship and control that. Lots of luck.)
>
> I also wanted to be able to dash off another neg as needed for a gum print
> or in the middle of the night. I think, too, that the new printers -- and
> the new substrates -- make printing your own digital negs much
> easier/better. (My first choice isn't Pictorico, now apparently the
> standard, it's the Kodak backlight film, but these are all relatively
> new.)
>
> Incidentally, Christina, on page 39 of P-F #8, under "Substrates," I wrote
> that Epson Inkjet Back Light Film is not only much more expensive than the
> Kodak Backlit, but blocks most UV light. That from my own tests.
>
> Judy
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 07/09/03-08:31:13 AM Z CST