Joe,
Looking at the curve values that you came up with here are a couple of 
comments.
First of all, I just read Gary Nored's article   and notice that he is 
exposing his digital negatives using sunlight.   If you are using tubes or a NUARC, 
there could be a real difference in behavior of inkjet negatives between the 
two light sources.
Both your   and Gary's curve values indicate a density range in the negative 
that is higher than the exposure scale of the Van Dyke process you are using—
he is reducing density range by upping the black   point value from 0-24 while 
yours is upping the   black point   value from 0 to 54. As you say, this 
compresses the image tones and you end up with fewer printed tones in the VDB 
print.
This could   be a difference in media settings.   It wasn't clear   which 
media setting you are using. The highest   density media setting for the   Epson  
 2200 with a UV light   source is Premium Glossy Photo Paper. The matte paper 
settings generally have less density, however the   order of the media 
settings in the printer driver setup   does not   necessarily translate to   one of 
increasing or decreasing density.
On the other end   of   the Curve Output Values, you show a really strong 
increase in density in the (225,133) point   on your curve, which may indicate 
that your Standard Exposure Value for VDB is too high as this would indicate 
trying to compensate for blocked up shadows.   It would also   lead to 
Posterization in the shadows, since the curve is   so steep around that point.   Also, 
when I entered your values, I got   a "dip" in the   line   of the   curve, 
between this point and the   next point,   which would   also   cause an odd 
"banding" around those values in the image.
While your overall curve   is similar to the   shape required   for an 
adjustment curve, it indicates a number of problems.   Adjustment curves should be 
very smooth and graceful.   The best adjustment   curve, is no   curve at all, 
which   is difficult to achieve, but coming as close as you can to that is a 
good   goal.   Even with a good 16 bit workflow, the more exaggerated the 
curve, the more problems you have with tonal loss.
Mark Nelson
www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com
In a message dated 11/18/04 10:21:44 PM, jsmigiel@kvcc.edu writes:
> Thanks for the pointer to Gary's site.  I had seen it and read the
> article.  But,  it only adds to my bewilderment about the severity of
> the correction curves.  Look at Gary's curve values compared to mine:
> 
> input...Gary's output...My output
> 225...222...133
> 190...190...118
> 156...162...103
> 120...138...93
> 90...121...85
> 44...90...72
> 20...61...64
> 0...24...54
> 
> His range of values in the corrected negative is almost 200 levels while
> mine is compressed to around 80 levels.  We are both clipping the high
> and low ends but my clipping is much more severe on both ends and the
> curve much lower in contrast.  I've tried my curve with a couple
> different images and get similar (and nearly acceptable) results from
> the negatives.  I'm perplexed.
> 
Received on Thu Nov 18 23:59:39 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:33 AM Z CST