Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, so let's first be
> sure that we are. I'm talking about using a digital camera that makes
> the image in pixels. If you overlay pixels - which I understand are
> square - with a screen made from the grain of a particular emulsion,
> wouldn't there be some sort of moir� or similar pattern at some degree
> of enlargement, just like what happens when one screens or reproduces
> half-tones? How large have you made your prints?
These prints were made small. However, the difference with digital
pixels is that they touch, so as long as the screen is sized, pixel to
pixel, the same as the original image, then there's no problem. Of
course, you would need lots of information in the digital image to begin
with, but we're forward-thinking here. :)
Even so, I made a record-sized version of the cover (I'm old-school
enough that I size my CD jackets so that I can print an excellent 12x12
should the need arise), on which I could detect no moire pattern, even
though I was certainly laying pattern over pattern -- Delta 3200
magnified over Delta 3200.
I think the patterning should be minimal at its worst, since the grain
pattern of film is not a standard repeating pattern.
> Aaron continued:
>
> > The bonus, too, was that despite different crops and magnifications of
> > the images, they all had the same sized grain, so they didn't look
> > differently cropped. Woohoo!
>
> And Shel responded:
>
> Which is not what happens when one enlarges a film negative. So,
> while the technique may be acceptable in certain instances, it makes
> no sense to use it in others, where the different size of the grain
> clumps in different sized enlargements is an important part of the
> overall look of the final print.
Yes. However, applying the screen before enlarging and cropping would
yield the result you describe. I applied the screen afterwards.
> The other aspect of this technique is that every print produced would
> have the same grain pattern - there would be a certain sameness to all
> the final prints, which, to a traditional B&W shooter like myself,
> would be an anathema.
Well, you could scan different pieces of film, or magnify and use a
different section each time. Also, I don't think that you could really
detect the sameness of the grain pattern, since each different image
will yield a different result.
> > a cheater extrordinaire
>
> Not "extrordinaire", but a clever cheater nonetheless <g>
HAR!
-Cheating Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
