Re: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer

From: TERRYAKING_at_aol.com
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 20:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <3f6.1361ca1.31894f6d@aol.com>

Yves

There may be a language difficulty here as I do not think that you have
understood the relationships.

Each of these processes has a maximum density range that does not change.
It is a constant.

This is chemical and physical constant independent of how one makes one's
negatives, Photoshop or what is done in the printing industry.

Of course, if one has any sense, one makes one's negatives, whether digital
or otherwise, to suit what each processes will accept..

As a rider to the above, this does not mean that one has to expose a
different negative for every process. Different scenes call for different processes.
while negatives can be adapted to suit different processes.

Terry

In a message dated 3/5/06 12:37:44 am, gauvreau-yves@sympatico.ca writes:

>
> Terry,
>
>  
>
> your position on the pertinence of manipulating the distribution of values
> on a negative in order to produce a better match between the neg and the
> properties of a process dependent print is well known. I don't critic your
> position, I just don't understand why an experience guy like you who probably as
> work very hard to get is negatives to match as much as possible the exposure
> scale and other characteristics of his print process material. Even assuming
> you never did made any special effort of any kind ie. use and develop his
> films as per the manufacturer recommendations. I'm sure you tried to bring the
> best out of your prefered ones amoung all these negs in some fashion or another.
>
>  
>
> If you did any kind of change to your negatives and or chosen a different
> paper grade or even choose a process that would produce the best image you can
> do or think of. Well today, with computer program like Photoshop you can
> practically print any negative on any kind of paper or whatever process you can
> think of. This as been done for years in the printing industry, ok it's not
> art but the basic are exactly the same.
>
>  
>
> Regards
>
> Yves
>
>  
>
>
Received on 05/02/06-06:13:02 PM Z

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 06/23/06-10:10:52 AM Z CST