From: Sandy King (email@example.com)
Date: 04/10/02-12:16:28 PM Z
You did not say anything about the original negative or how you
scanned it! I suspect the reason for the fuzzy look is in these areas
rather than in the dpi you set for printing. A few days ago I
complained about granular look of a 13X19 negative made on Pictorico
with the 2000P. However, the negative, which was originally scanned
at about 1600 dpi with an Imacon scanner, and then enhanced with the
Unsharp Mask and High Pass filter, is gloriously sharp. In fact, it
prints with greater apparent sharpness than is in an original silver
gelatin print made directly from the 5X7 negative.
As for the Unsharp Mask, it can be used for any negatives, whether
they are to be made on the desktop or by a service bureau.
>Back to the matter at hand, and away from cafe discussions of
>legitimate versus bastardized art! (Although a good debate is always
>enjoyable, especially at night over absinthe, a la Kiki, Man Ray,
>etc.) Like I said, people using optical devices who can draw
>without them get different results from people who can't. That
>would include Vermeer, etc. I think if I were a better draftsperson
>I might be able to draw and paint from photographs with better
>results too, but alas, I am but a journeywoman draftsperson.
>I made my first print from a desktop negative today, and while it
>turned out better than I expected, it looked a little fuzzy. I
>didn't do the Unsharp Mask thing because Dan's book doesn't say to
>do that if you are making desktop negatives. I printed it on
>pictorico film on the Epson 2000P at school, at 300 dpi. I am
>wondering if I should try a higher resolution or do the Unsharp Mask
>thing? Also, it seemed to take longer to print than a regular
>negative. Is this normal? I was printing it in cyanotype.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST