Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

>In fact, I have had some contact with another list member who is
>interested in a dye-based, Piezo-compatible quad so that we could 
>use the Piezo driver to output the digital negatives.  I think that 
>could be a very interesting way to go if it works.

Now that sounds very cool. However, can we obtain enough density for 
silver or yet worse platinum. In Burkholder's book he uses a 
colorized process using 0,55,55,0 to obtain an orange color to block 
UV light thus giving the negative greater density (although the 
negative appears to be very thin).

For Palladium/Platinum a density range of 1.8-1.95 is ideal. The use 
of restrainers to control contrast is not a wise solution as they 
result in image degredation through clumpy grain. Building a digital 
negative with the needed density results in eliminating the need for 
a contrast agent or restrainer.

> I agree that the traditional -- silver and platinum -- prints are 
>probably going to be preferred by a number of galleries and 
>collectors for some time.

Just the reality of the day.
 
> Actually, I have something of an ulterior motive.  If we have a 
>reasonable way to make the "traditional" products with our digital 
>files, I think it'll focus the "anti-digital" arguments into the 
>categories of, first, the objections based on longevity (really an 
>objective problem we can deal with)and, second, those objections 
>that are based on the mere fact of a digital step.  Frankly, I 
>think a lot of the objections are in this category.
>However, if they can't tell the difference, and if we simply label 
>out prints as "silver" or "platinum," it should make life a little 
>more difficult for the anti-digital bigots.

That is a nice way to put it, but you are really correct. The inkjet 
prints, although not proven yet, may in fact last longer than silver 
prints, are suffering from a certain amount of snob appeal.

Mike