RE: Printer DPI vs Resampling

[Bob Tyson <bobicho@earthlink.net>]

<x-flowed>>Bob Tyson <bobicho@earthlink.net> writes on 29 October 2000 at 18:56:17 -0800
>
>  > I'm maybe more testy than usual because I bumped into a photograph
>  > (no--- more than one) at SFMOMA this afternoon that blew me away,
>  > made me remember why I'm in this game at all. A view of a glacier in
>  > the Alps, 1870's or so, a gorgeous carbon print. Wilhelm longevity?
>  > Superfluous. DPI? You're kidding! Tonality, edge, luminosity, print
>  > color? I forget the details. It was gorgeous. I could go on.
>
>Wilhelm longevity, unknown.  ACTUAL longevity, critically important,
>or you couldn't have seen this photo more than 100 years after it was
>taken.


Thank you David. My point, precisely. But beyond that, at some level 
"longevity" may not even be so important...I doubt the carbon 
printers were first of all bothered with that. It's such a fussy 
process, and platinum gives an even more stable result with 1/10th 
the work. But what you SEE in the result is something else, a world 
of its own. "Longevity" is a nice bonus, in that case.

Bob Tyson
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.

</x-flowed>