> >> > ... might blur the image, no matter how flat the
Now Greg (?) thought,
> >Yes, I suspect you might loose some sharpness, though I'm not sure>
And he and/or Luis agreed that
>If the highest possible resolution is required, a point light source
>>would be in order.
I guess I asked for this, but, Greg........ ... Luis ,,,,,,,,,
Louis -------- ANYBODY!!!!! Are you really saying/suspecting that this
loss of sharpness between contact with fibre paper and contact with RC
paper when making a negative to be printed on one of our rag papers
(Arches, Platine, Strathmore, whatever) by contact (not enlargement) would
be visible to the naked eye? In my experience (admittedly I am NOT eagle
eye on sharpness) the issue is MUCH more likely to be a fuzzy look in the
shadows from the paper fibre (not so visible in the highlights). This
shows in the negative, but tends to be cancelled out by the printing
paper. Again, I'm not talking about killer platinum printing.
But if you were concerned with point-light-source type sharpness, wouldn't
you make your interpositive on FILM in the first place? As Mr. Beauford
B. Fisher said in a magazine I bought at the APHS fair last week , "The
transparent positive or diapositive results in the most perfect retention
of all the delicate tone gradations." Etc. ("The Paper Negative Process,"
Camera Craft, Nov. 1934.)
Acutely, Judy