February 2004 Alt-Photo-Process-L: Lightjet Prints

From: Ender100@aol.com
Date: 02/02/04-02:34:12 AM Z
Message-id: <3d.3a27cf4d.2d4f6584@aol.com>

I sent this the other day, but from Sandy's comment, I don't think it made it
to the list...

Return-path: <Ender100@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:42:32 EST
From: Ender100@aol.com
Subject: Re: And how sharp I am was/Re: Temperaprint & Gum
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Message-id: <1e3.1887231a.2d4d7b48@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Thunderbird - Mac OS X sub 31
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_wODk2qAuQJApbwYaywthrg)"
Full-name: Ender100

--Boundary_(ID_wODk2qAuQJApbwYaywthrg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-language: en
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Shannon,

The Lightjet prints are printed at from 200=E2=80=94400 ppi. I have one co=
ming next=20
Monday, should be interesting. One reason they seem so sharp is that 1=20
printed "dot" on the print image equals 1 pixel in the file image. There i=
s no=20
dithering to approximate a color/tone. This is because they expose the sam=
e=20
printed dot with 3 lasers, R,G,&B. Also, the Lightjet 5000-5900 series has=
=20
some sort of sharpening enhancement feature that it performs on the fly. I=
=20
wonder if this can be turned off though so there would not be any artifacts=20
resulting from it.

Cymbolic Sciences, who make or market the Lightjet printers claim that the=20
prints are equivalent in detail to an imagesetter resolution of about 4000 d=
ots=20
per inch. However, an imagesetter of 4000 dpi (dots per inch) will not=20
render all 256 tones above 250 ppi or 250 linescreen=E2=80=94most commonly f=
ound=20
imagesetters are 3600 dpi and can can only render all 256 tones at 225 ppi (=
pixels per=20
inch) equivalent (225 linescreen) or less=E2=80=94if my math be correct.

I believe most of the color paper that is used with Lightjet printers is Fuj=
i=20
Chrystal Archive, which is rated very high=E2=80=94as much as 60-80 years, b=
ut you=20
would have to check with Fuji or Wilhelm Research to confirm that.

The Lightjet 5900 can do an image that is 49" x 97"=E2=80=94certainly large=20=
enough=20
for greeting cards.

If you are wanting to make a digital negative for UV, then it should be=20
printed on Duraclear transparency material, which for some reason is limited=
in=20
size to 50" x 49". Although that's a lot of PT/PD and I can imagine a 12"=20=
Magic=20
Brush would cost more than the last car I purchased.

I agree that fashions tend to come and go, including sharpness and sushi.

I do however, think that it is important to some people to know the=20
limitations of materials and processes and workflows. It's like a painter=20=
knowing=20
which brushes they wish to use for fine detail=E2=80=94they ain't gonna choo=
se a floor=20
mop to dot their eyes. Or, how sharp does gum print?

I don't feel particularly obsessed with these issues, I do try to keep=20
learning the technical side because it helps make the artistic side easier t=
o=20
accomplish=E2=80=94I have more tools and know how to use them to create the=20=
vision I am=20
after. Obviously, something could be technically perfect and fail miserabl=
y on=20
the artistic side. Maybe I am cranially ambidextrous.

Mark Nelson

Since we have been doing sort of an Alt Photo + food them=E2=80=94
Today's cooking hint: Chilli is a great wintertime meal. I like it with=20
cornbread. In fact, I like the Jiffy brand of cornbread mix=E2=80=94it is=20=
sweeter. I=20
make it in muffin tins. That way it has more of that crunchy crust and it=20=
is=20
easy to serve a bunch of muffins in a basket and your guests don't spill a=20
bowl of chilli on your carpet while holding and trying to cut the cornbread.=
I=20
also add 2 tablespoons of corn oil to the mix so it is a bit heavier and=20
doesn't crumble as much when I try to spread the gob of butter on it. The=20=
chilli=20
tastes better if I avoid dropping my undershorts in the pot while it is=20
cooking.

In a message dated 1/31/04 11:18:48 AM, shannonstoney@earthlink.net writes:

> From what I understand about the history of photography, 20 or 30 years ag=
o
> there was a reaction against the modernist f64 super sharpness obsession a=
nd
> the general modernist elevation of craft in general (including making
> photographs archival). I think that is where Judy is coming from, ie the
> postmodern position (of the 70s) that photographs don't have to be sharp a=
nd
> archival.=C2=A0 But nowadays, the pendulum seems to have swung back the ot=
her
> way.=C2=A0 I saw a show of Joel Sternfeld's landscape photographs in a gal=
lery in
> NYC last week.=C2=A0 They were SHARP!=C2=A0 And that's what made them good=
.=C2=A0 They were
> also huge, and color.
>=20
> I also saw in NYC another show of large color landscape photographs--again=
,
> everything very sharp--taken in China where the Three Gorges Dam is going=20=
to
> destroy some towns.
>=20
> It seems that there is a trend right now in landscape photography toward
> large format (8x10 negative?) color photographs, probably shot at f64 with=
a
> long exposure, then scanned and printed on one of those light jet printers=
.
> I love these huge, color, super sharp prints, and I wish I could afford to
> make one.=C2=A0 Maybe I will=C2=A0 look into the prices.=C2=A0 Anyway, par=
t of the appeal
> to me is the super sharpness. It's sharper than the eye can see, almost
> surrealistically or hyper-realistically sharp.
>=20
> I wonder if the light jet prints are more archival than the old C prints?=20=
If
> you are going to spend that kind of money making them or collecting them,
> you want them to last.
>=20
> Also, this trend makes me think that if you are old-fashioned enough,
> eventually you will come back into style.=C2=A0 So, don't worry Judy:=C2=
=A0 poorly
> crafted, fuzzy photographs will probably be all the rage in say 20 years o=
r
> so!
>=20
> --shannon
>=20
>=20

--Boundary_(ID_wODk2qAuQJApbwYaywthrg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-language: en
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

<HTML><HTML>Shannon, 
 
The Lightjet prints are printed at from 200=E2=80=94400 ppi.  I=
have one coming next Monday, should be interesting.  One reaso=
n they seem so sharp is that 1 printed "dot" on the print image equal=
s 1 pixel in the file image.  There is no dithering to approxim=
ate a color/tone.  This is because they expose the same printed=
dot with 3 lasers, R,G,&B.  Also, the Lightjet 5000-5900 s=
eries has some sort of sharpening enhancement feature that it perform=
s on the fly.  I wonder if this can be turned off though so the=
re would not be any artifacts resulting from it. 
 
Cymbolic Sciences, who make or market the Lightjet printers claim tha=
t the prints are equivalent in detail to an imagesetter resolution of=
about 4000 dots per inch.  However, an imagesetter of 4000 dpi=
(dots per inch) will not render all 256 tones above 250 ppi or 250 l=
inescreen=E2=80=94most commonly found imagesetters are 3600 dpi and c=
an can only render all 256 tones at 225 ppi (pixels per inch) equival=
ent (225 linescreen) or less=E2=80=94if my math be correct. 
 
I believe most of the color paper that is used with Lightjet printers=
is Fuji Chrystal Archive, which is rated very high=E2=80=94as much a=
s 60-80 years, but you would have to check with Fuji or Wilhelm Resea=
rch to confirm that. 
 
The Lightjet 5900 can do an image that is 49" x 97"=E2=80=94certainly=
large enough for greeting cards. 
 
If you are wanting to make a digital negative for UV, then it should =
be printed on Duraclear transparency material, which for some reason =
is limited in size to 50" x 49".  Although that's a lot of PT/P=
D and I can imagine a 12" Magic Brush would cost more than the last c=
ar I purchased. 
 
I agree that fashions tend to come and go, including sharpness and su=
shi. 
 
I do however, think that it is important to some people to know the l=
imitations of materials and processes and workflows.  It's like=
a painter knowing which brushes they wish to use for fine detail=
=E2=80=94they ain't gonna choose a floor mop to dot their eyes. =
Or, how sharp does gum print? 
 
I don't feel particularly obsessed with these issues, I do try to kee=
p learning the technical side because it helps make the artistic side=
easier to accomplish=E2=80=94I have more tools and know how to use t=
hem to create the vision I am after.  Obviously, something coul=
d be technically perfect and fail miserably on the artistic side.&nbs=
p; Maybe I am cranially ambidextrous. 
 
Mark Nelson 
 
Since we have been doing sort of an Alt Photo + food them=E2=80=94<BR=
>
Today's cooking hint: Chilli is a great wintertime meal.  I lik=
e it with cornbread.  In fact, I like the Jiffy brand of cornbr=
ead mix=E2=80=94it is sweeter.  I make it in muffin tins. =
That way it has more of that crunchy crust and it is easy to serve =
a bunch of muffins in a basket and your guests don't spill a bowl of =
chilli on your carpet while holding and trying to cut the cornbread.&=
nbsp; I also add 2 tablespoons of corn oil to the mix so it is a bit=
heavier and doesn't crumble as much when I try to spread the gob of =
butter on it.  The chilli tastes better if I avoid dropping my =
undershorts in the pot while it is cooking. 
 
 
In a message dated 1/31/04 11:18:48 AM, shannonstoney@earthlink.net w=
rites: 
 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE=3D"CITE"><FO=
NT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2">=
=46rom what I understand about the history of photography, 20 or 30 y=
ears ago 
there was a reaction against the modernist f64 super sharpness obsess=
ion and 
the general modernist elevation of craft in general (including making=
 
photographs archival). I think that is where Judy is coming from, ie =
the 
postmodern position (of the 70s) that photographs don't have to be sh=
arp and 
archival.=C2=A0 But nowadays, the pendulum seems to have swung back t=
he other 
way.=C2=A0 I saw a show of Joel Sternfeld's landscape photographs in =
a gallery in 
NYC last week.=C2=A0 They were SHARP!=C2=A0 And that's what made them=
good.=C2=A0 They were 
also huge, and color. 
 
I also saw in NYC another show of large color landscape photographs--=
again, 
everything very sharp--taken in China where the Three Gorges Dam is g=
oing to 
destroy some towns. 
 
It seems that there is a trend right now in landscape photography tow=
ard 
large format (8x10 negative?) color photographs, probably shot at f64=
with a 
long exposure, then scanned and printed on one of those light jet pri=
nters. 
I love these huge, color, super sharp prints, and I wish I could affo=
rd to 
make one.=C2=A0 Maybe I will=C2=A0 look into the prices.=C2=A0 Anyway=
, part of the appeal 
to me is the super sharpness. It's sharper than the eye can see, almo=
st 
surrealistically or hyper-realistically sharp. 
 
I wonder if the light jet prints are more archival than the old C pri=
nts? If 
you are going to spend that kind of money making them or collecting t=
hem, 
you want them to last. 
 
Also, this trend makes me think that if you are old-fashioned enough,=
 
eventually you will come back into style.=C2=A0 So, don't worry Judy:=
=C2=A0 poorly 
crafted, fuzzy photographs will probably be all the rage in say 20 ye=
ars or 
so! 
 
--shannon 
 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
</HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_wODk2qAuQJApbwYaywthrg)--
Received on Mon Feb 2 02:34:42 2004

Lightjet Prints—was And how sharp I am was/Re: Temperaprint & Gum