Re: And how sharp I am was/Re: Temperaprint & Gum

From: [email protected]
Date: 01/31/04-03:42:32 PM Z
Message-id: <>


The Lightjet prints are printed at from 200—400 ppi. I have one coming next
Monday, should be interesting. One reason they seem so sharp is that 1
printed "dot" on the print image equals 1 pixel in the file image. There is no
dithering to approximate a color/tone. This is because they expose the same
printed dot with 3 lasers, R,G,&B. Also, the Lightjet 5000-5900 series has
some sort of sharpening enhancement feature that it performs on the fly. I
wonder if this can be turned off though so there would not be any artifacts
resulting from it.

Cymbolic Sciences, who make or market the Lightjet printers claim that the
prints are equivalent in detail to an imagesetter resolution of about 4000 dots
per inch. However, an imagesetter of 4000 dpi (dots per inch) will not
render all 256 tones above 250 ppi or 250 linescreen—most commonly found
imagesetters are 3600 dpi and can can only render all 256 tones at 225 ppi (pixels per
inch) equivalent (225 linescreen) or less—if my math be correct.

I believe most of the color paper that is used with Lightjet printers is Fuji
Chrystal Archive, which is rated very high—as much as 60-80 years, but you
would have to check with Fuji or Wilhelm Research to confirm that.

The Lightjet 5900 can do an image that is 49" x 97"—certainly large enough
for greeting cards.

If you are wanting to make a digital negative for UV, then it should be
printed on Duraclear transparency material, which for some reason is limited in
size to 50" x 49". Although that's a lot of PT/PD and I can imagine a 12" Magic
Brush would cost more than the last car I purchased.

I agree that fashions tend to come and go, including sharpness and sushi.

I do however, think that it is important to some people to know the
limitations of materials and processes and workflows. It's like a painter knowing
which brushes they wish to use for fine detail—they ain't gonna choose a floor
mop to dot their eyes. Or, how sharp does gum print?

I don't feel particularly obsessed with these issues, I do try to keep
learning the technical side because it helps make the artistic side easier to
accomplish—I have more tools and know how to use them to create the vision I am
after. Obviously, something could be technically perfect and fail miserably on
the artistic side. Maybe I am cranially ambidextrous.

Mark Nelson

Since we have been doing sort of an Alt Photo + food them—
Today's cooking hint: Chilli is a great wintertime meal. I like it with
cornbread. In fact, I like the Jiffy brand of cornbread mix—it is sweeter. I
make it in muffin tins. That way it has more of that crunchy crust and it is
easy to serve a bunch of muffins in a basket and your guests don't spill a
bowl of chilli on your carpet while holding and trying to cut the cornbread. I
also add 2 tablespoons of corn oil to the mix so it is a bit heavier and
doesn't crumble as much when I try to spread the gob of butter on it. The chilli
tastes better if I avoid dropping my undershorts in the pot while it is

In a message dated 1/31/04 11:18:48 AM, writes:

> From what I understand about the history of photography, 20 or 30 years ago
> there was a reaction against the modernist f64 super sharpness obsession and
> the general modernist elevation of craft in general (including making
> photographs archival). I think that is where Judy is coming from, ie the
> postmodern position (of the 70s) that photographs don't have to be sharp and
> archival.  But nowadays, the pendulum seems to have swung back the other
> way.  I saw a show of Joel Sternfeld's landscape photographs in a gallery in
> NYC last week.  They were SHARP!  And that's what made them good.  They were
> also huge, and color.
> I also saw in NYC another show of large color landscape photographs--again,
> everything very sharp--taken in China where the Three Gorges Dam is going to
> destroy some towns.
> It seems that there is a trend right now in landscape photography toward
> large format (8x10 negative?) color photographs, probably shot at f64 with a
> long exposure, then scanned and printed on one of those light jet printers.
> I love these huge, color, super sharp prints, and I wish I could afford to
> make one.  Maybe I will  look into the prices.  Anyway, part of the appeal
> to me is the super sharpness. It's sharper than the eye can see, almost
> surrealistically or hyper-realistically sharp.
> I wonder if the light jet prints are more archival than the old C prints? If
> you are going to spend that kind of money making them or collecting them,
> you want them to last.
> Also, this trend makes me think that if you are old-fashioned enough,
> eventually you will come back into style.  So, don't worry Judy:  poorly
> crafted, fuzzy photographs will probably be all the rage in say 20 years or
> so!
> --shannon
Received on Sat Jan 31 15:43:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/02/04-09:50:00 AM Z CST