Re: How many gum layers (Re: ferri sesquichlorati)

[Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>]

I don't know... around and around and around we go.  We had a  
spirited debate about this a while back that started around the  
question of top-down vs bottom-up hardening.  Chris issued a  
challenge: she said that using the method of matching the negative to  
the short scale of gum, she would be able to equal the tonal scale of  
a carbon print with a one-coat gum.  I said, well, I'm skeptical but  
I'm willing to be shown.  But when she finally posted the print, it  
was  just your usual one-coat gum, with a couple dark tones,  a  
couple mid tones and a couple light tones, but nothing like subtlety  
of tonal gradation throughout a long tonal scale that's possible with  
a carbon print, or with multiple printing with gum. As I said, so far  
the only example of a one-coat gum I've seen that seemed to live up  
to that ideal was Marek's back-printed flowers; nothing else has come  
close. So, until someone shows me something more interesting, I'll  
continue to say that the only way to do that is with multiple printing.
Katharine



On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Ender100@aol.com wrote:

> While I understand the method of printing shadows and printing  
> highlights seperately,  to some degree, I would guess that this was  
> done because the density range of most negatives far exceeded the  
> shorter exposure scale of gum  I would think that might be  
> revisited, since the density range and exposure scale can be  
> matched easily now.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Mark Nelson
>
> Precision Digital Negatives - The System
> PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
> Military Commissions Act of 2006 - A STAIN on our Nation's History
>
>
> In a message dated 10/24/06 9:37:29 AM, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
>
>
> > Then there's a school of thought that says you should make a contact
> > negative that brings the tonal scale of the original negative down to
> > the short range of gum,  but that's never made sense to me  because
> > you lose so much of the subtlety when you do that; I prefer to print
> > all the tones in the original negative.  So far, the only way I've
> > ever seen to get subtle  tonal gradation throughout a long tonal
> > scale (with the one exception of Marek's back-printed flowers) is
> > multiple printing, as described above.