LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

One scan fits all is not how I as a professional
would print digitally. There was a reason the old
Kodak CD and similar still available, for instance,
provided a range of different pre press resolutions.

What I find: at least for certain publications is
that to get suitable input on what they "Like"
proves most difficult - sometimes. However a
16 bit 300 dpi file is probably going to be adequate
if the file is close to full page.

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

G- Blank wrote:
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:


One scan fits all is not how I as a professional
would print digitally. There was a reason the old
Kodak CD and similar still available, for instance,
provided a range of different pre press resolutions.


What I find: at least for certain publications is
that to get suitable input on what they "Like"
proves most difficult - sometimes. However a
16 bit 300 dpi file is probably going to be adequate
if the file is close to full page.


I just sent off two jobs this weekend that were 355 dpi specifications.
That company doing the printing uses a higher frequency printing method.
The other odd thing was that use a 350% total ink limit, while I have
seen a more common 310% maximum. I have also seen 400 dpi specifications
coming up for some publications.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

One scan fits all is not how I as a professional
would print digitally. There was a reason the old
Kodak CD and similar still available, for instance,
provided a range of different pre press resolutions.


Who gives a rat's ass how *you* would do it?

You have no standing in the discussion, as you
consistently deny the validity of film scanning in
the first place.

Take your head out of your ass, and then we'll talk.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

One scan fits all is not how I as a professional
would print digitally. There was a reason the old
Kodak CD and similar still available, for instance,
provided a range of different pre press resolutions.

Who gives a rat's ass how *you* would do it?

You mean, how a professional photographer would do
it? Or how my professional Service Bureau would do
it? Either way, my clients give a rat's ass.

You have no standing in the discussion, as you
consistently deny the validity of film scanning in
the first place.

Just a teency bit autocratic, aren't ya? Must be
a W supporter.

Only thing I've ever denied (since I've been
scanning for years...I still have PS v1 on my
vintage 1989 Mac) is the knowledge you claim to
have but don't re digital vs photographic processes.

Take your head out of your ass, and then we'll talk.

Talk? Wasn't aware you had anything LF relevant to
say, other than trying to crosspost r.p.e.large-format
into your own personal digital newsgroup (again, read
the charter.)

And if you really want to impress me next time, you'll
have to do better than a poor imitation of Nebenzahl.
At least he's for free speech...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

Only thing I've ever denied (since I've been
scanning for years...I still have PS v1 on my
vintage 1989 Mac) is the knowledge you claim to
have but don't re digital vs photographic processes.


You lie. According to you, if it's not captured
on film and "printed with light," it's not photography.

W supporter? You're as poor a judge of my
politics as you are of things in general, it seems.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

Only thing I've ever denied (since I've been
scanning for years...I still have PS v1 on my
vintage 1989 Mac) is the knowledge you claim to
have but don't re digital vs photographic processes.

You lie. According to you, if it's not captured
on film and "printed with light," it's not photography.

Digital processes aren't photographic processes.
That doesn't mean I don't know and use digital
processes. You, however, clearly don't know either
or the differences between them...

W supporter? You're as poor a judge of my
politics as you are of things in general, it seems.

Could care less about your avowed politics, only
that like W (a whining little fascist) you go
around telling people they have no standing and
therefore no right to speak, like all flamers do
when their misrepresentations are challenged.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Could care less about your avowed politics,

Really? Why did you bring it up, then?
You lie, as usual. Or else you have a very
short memory.

only that like W (a whining little fascist) you go
around telling people they have no standing and
therefore no right to speak, like all flamers do
when their misrepresentations are challenged.


IIRC, it's you, Tom, telling me that I have no
right to post on this forum.

Bye bye, Tom.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message

only that like W (a whining little fascist) you go
around telling people they have no standing and
therefore no right to speak, like all flamers do
when their misrepresentations are challenged.

IIRC, it's you, Tom, telling me that I have no
right to post on this forum.

If it's crosposted or belongs in a digital ngs,
I'd once again say read the charters...

Ah, I never said I hadn't worked in a wet darkroom. Only that I hadn't used
4x5 in a wet darkroom. I only have experience with 35mm and a wee bit of
medium format in the wet darkroom. I know first had how difficult it is to
burn in a specific area of an image without burning in the area next to it.
The master's were proficient with it, but I can't imagine they could do it
with the accuracy of digital. Even if one cuts a custom dodging tool, it
would be difficult (impossible?) to match the shapes that a digital
selection can accomplish.

and yes digital images can be poorly done. Underworked and also overworked.
Todd
--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com
"G- Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Todd Maurer" wrote:

However the digital darkroom can also yield fantastic
results that the wet darkroom couldn't hope to match.

Huh, from one who has never made an optical print,...this becomes a
stretch & its the only sentence I take issue with. A poorly done digital
print can be just plain awful , in so many ways. I have seen many awful
digitally printed images.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

Fair enough, though the goal should be -not to need burning and
dodging,....something I strive for and usually accomplish especially
when creating color imagery.


In article ,
"Todd Maurer" wrote:

Ah, I never said I hadn't worked in a wet darkroom. Only that I hadn't used
4x5 in a wet darkroom. I only have experience with 35mm and a wee bit of
medium format in the wet darkroom. I know first had how difficult it is to
burn in a specific area of an image without burning in the area next to it.
The master's were proficient with it, but I can't imagine they could do it
with the accuracy of digital. Even if one cuts a custom dodging tool, it
would be difficult (impossible?) to match the shapes that a digital
selection can accomplish.

and yes digital images can be poorly done. Underworked and also overworked.
Todd
--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com