Re: Re:Stouffer wedge (was VDB is "Brownprint" process?)

From: Susan Huber ^lt;shuber@ssisland.com>
Date: 02/24/06-07:25:29 AM Z
Message-id: <004f01c63945$c8aebfa0$1d9dc8cf@ownereb7xeo44n>

Thanks, Yves!
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yves Gauvreau" <gauvreau-yves@sympatico.ca>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re:Stouffer wedge (was VDB is "Brownprint" process?)

> Hi
>
> I wonder if using a "normal" step tablet (Stouffer) is really the way to
go
> when you are doing digital negative either with a printer or with an image
> setter. My reasoning is that I assume one is trying edit the scanned image
> on screen and then print a negative of this "final" image, yes there are
> adjusting curve and others involved in the workflow but the essential is
not
> density it's pixel values and how they translate from screen to printer,
to
> the print (process dependent) and back to screen with a scan. Translating
> pixel value to density equivalent is not needed IMHO and I would add, if
you
> make your own step tablet on the same material you would use to make your
> negatives you are further reducing the number of variables to adjust. In
> other word it would be simpler and less prone to errors of all kinds. With
> this idea in mind I have made a step tablet with a value of only 5 as step
> delta and a small continuous gradient adjacent to these steps. I
understand
> finding proper exposure may be a bit tricky but I could simply use a
> "normal" step tablet side by side with my own and get the best of both
> worlds sort of speak.
>
> It just happens I'll try this approach later today for VDB.
>
> Regards
> Yves
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <pulpfic@sunshinecable.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re:Stouffer wedge (was VDB is "Brownprint" process?)
>
>
> > At 05:16 AM 2/23/06 -0800, Susan Huber wrote:
> >
> > >BTW; does one need a 21 step wedge for alternative processes and how
does
> > >one use it?
> > >I went into the store yesterday and found out the Kodak step wedge
costs
> > >$144. US and the Stouffer wedge costs $5.80 US- a big difference in
> price,
> > >any difference in quality?
> >
> > Hi Susan,
> >
> > The Stouffer 21 step transmission wedge T2115 is excellent for our
> > purposes, and since it is so inexpensive, you may want to have two or
> three
> > of them so you can do several side-by-side tests of different exposures
at
> > the same time.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Randi
> > --
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > Ms Randi DeLisle
> > papermaker, bookbinder, publisher & printmaker
> > pulp fictions & pulp fictions press
> > Grand Forks BC Canada pulpfic@sunshinecable.com
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >
>
Received on Fri Feb 24 07:25:57 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/13/06-10:42:58 AM Z CST