[pure-silver] Re: Digital Negatives from Imagesetters
- From: Christopher Woodhouse <chris.woodhouse@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:29:39 +0100
The other nice thing is that this negative is convenient to store, won't
fade and can be printed big or small.
On 18/4/06 21:18, "Claudio Bonavolta" <claudio@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Christopher Woodhouse a écrit :
>
>> Tim, I think there is a simpler way. It produces better results than any
>> inkjet negative. Ralph agrees.
>>
>> You simply photograph a 12x16 inkjet print and print the negative :)
>>
>> 1) If the image has a resolution 600dpi any competent inkjet printer will
>> give you about 9 lp/mm on paper.
>> 2) A 4x5 negative copy, taken with a standard lens and printed at 12x16
>> still has a resolution of 7lp/mm on paper (Nikon 150, f11, TriX)
>>
>> Now here is the clever bit. Use a smooth matt paper. It avoids all the
>> issues of lighting reflections and so on. In fact, diffuse lighting works
>> better with matt originals.
>>
>> You also need to adjust the print tonality for the negative / photo paper
>> process. I did this very simply:
>>
>> Make a simple stepwedge in 5%K increments and print it on an inkjet printer,
>> using whatever method you use to produce accurate prints.
>>
>> Stick the print to the wall and take an incident light reading. Use the
>> film's ISO value and add a stop of exposure for good measure. Copy the
>> picture, using medium or large format (I think 35mm is chancing it) and
>> develop it at N+1. This gives a negative which will print full range at
>> grade 2. Make a print of the stepwedge, adjusting contrast and exposure to
>> get a full range of tones. Compare this print with the inkjet print and make
>> a conversion table for equal print densities. (You can do this more
>> accurately with a densitometer). This table becomes a saved photoshop curve.
>>
>> When you want to make a negative, you first make a proof print on the inkjet
>> printer and satisfy yourself it is OK, then print it again at 12x16 or
>> similar, after applying the Photoshop curve. The print will look a little
>> weird, but when you photograph it and reprint it, will resemble the proof
>> print, providing you stick to the same exposure, development and printing
>> conditions.
>>
>> If the print head is aligned properly (and there are no striations in the
>> inkjet print), you will only see film grain in the final print, with smooth
>> gradation in highlight and shadow tones. I had success first time with this
>> approach and want to sell my shares in Pictorico.
>>
>> Chris Woodhouse
>>
>>
>>
> This is something I did years ago (pre-Photoshop era) with several
> pictures mixed together with airbrush (art)work (I could not put
> reasonably the prefix "art" ...).
> Matte prints were cut with a thin rotative cutter (airbrush equipment),
> sanded on the back to make them thinner on the joints and
> glued with rubber cement. Mat acrylic was used for the airbrush part.
> As the original was around 20x27", shooting it on film was pretty easy
> and didn't show that much the artifacts.
>
> Funny from a technical point of view, disastrous from an artistic one ...
--
Regards Chris Woodhouse
.... __o
.. -\<,
......(_)/(_).......................
============================================================================================================To
unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
