Re: Digital Negs with Dye Sublimation

A joke, I take it? Because of course continuous tone works great on
gum. My dye-sub was anything but continuous tone at any rate, but
then I have to remember that at the time, I was using a computer with
very little RAM so I couldn't work with very big files, and it may be
that the images were just too low resolution to make good digital
negatives with the dye-sub. Like I say, I've forgotten the details.
kt

On Apr 25, 2006, at 7:22 PM, Michael Koch-Schulte wrote:

> Dye-Subs are continuous tone. Perhaps that was its undoing.
>
> ~m
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Digital Negs with Dye Sublimation
>
>
>
>> Some years back, I had a dye-sub printer. It was long enough ago
>> that I don't remember the reason(s) why I didn't find it satisfactory
>> for negatives, but at that time I found that I got better digital
>> negatives for gum printing from a laser printer (using stochastic
>> bitmap files) rather than from the dye-sub printer. (This was of
>> course in the days before inkjet printers got good enough to make
>> decent digital negatives).
>> Katharine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Michael Koch-Schulte wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone attempted making digital negatives using a dye-
>>> sublimation printer. Does it work? ~m
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tue Apr 25 20:59:41 2006