Re: new member with opening question

["Laurie" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

To be brief, yes in a large number of cases to your first paragraph.  I call
this process "the poor man's film recorder."  There are some instances in
which it will not be possible to generate a copy neg good enough to produce
the final produce (i.e., a 4x5 original print copied to a 4x5 copy neg which
is then photographically enlarged into a final print of 20x24 or larger).
Such extreme enlargement of the negative will result not only in noticeable
dot patterns from the best  copy neg but in what will look like an old 65
line screen newspaper image if it is a poor copy neg.  The end result is
like color prints of people.  They can be off color in any color on the warm
or cold side as long as it  is not green.  The rephotographed inkjet print
will typically be satisfactorily and acceptably better than the original to
the client as long as the dot pattern is not big, bold and obtrusive.  This
is particularly true of restorations from old photos or  of even damaged new
photos.  It may not be so to the photographer or someone with a trained eye
who will tend to be overly particular and critical; but most clients are not
as exacting in my experience.

To the question in the second paragraph, what I say above holds.  Most
laypersons do not know the difference between continuous toned prints and
halftoned prints so unless the dot pattern is obvious to the naked eye it
will not look to them as if it were a photograph of an inkjet print.
However, I would not sell such prints as fine art or put them out as
non-digital continuos tone products either.  This said, a professional photo
buyer or photographer, art director, or art collector would probably be able
to see that it was a photograph of an inkjet print.  But you would be ok as
long as you do not try and fool anyone by attempting to pull the wool over
their eyes.

- Original Message -----
From: highfield <highfield@net1plus.com>
To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: new member with opening question


> Laurie Solomon wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > If you are using it as an intermediary
> > step which will be rephotographed onto film for actual photographic
printing
> > (as may be the case with restoration and retouching of photographs old
and
> > new), the archival quality is of less importance than some other
qualities.
> > If I do some manipulation of an image or some retouching or restoration
of
> > an image which I want to show to a client for approval before actually
> > committing it to film and actual photographic printing and enlargement,
<snip>
>
> thank you - this is well phrased..
> Do you find that you get a GOOD enough printed image from an
> inkjet prelim image to make a suitable photographic copy from ?
>
> This seemed to be the next logical step in the process IF a
> true photographic image was the desired product, yet if you are
> photographing an image of less than photographic quality
> does the final result give the appearance of a photo of an
> inkjet print ?
>
> Linda Nash
> -
> *** Dygraphics Dec. Promo: 30% off all inks while supplies last! ***
> ***   Sale includes Fotonic Inks, MIS inks, Lysonic inks, dye    ***
> ***   sublimation inks. http://www.dygraphics.com 888-786-8832   ***
>

-
*** Dygraphics Dec. Promo: 30% off all inks while supplies last! ***
***   Sale includes Fotonic Inks, MIS inks, Lysonic inks, dye    ***
***   sublimation inks. http://www.dygraphics.com 888-786-8832   ***