U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: How many gum layers (Re: ferri sesquichlorati)

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


I must apologize, I've lost track of the discussion and I am trying to figure out how what Chris may have said at that time is relevant to the current discussion of having a good match between negative density range and the shorter gum exposure scale plus a good curve and the advantage these two characteristics in a digital negative might give in getting a good print—even though one still might need to print for additional shadow density, which I would agree is may necessary with gum.  All I am saying is that if you have a good negative that meets the two above requirements, then you will start out closer to your final objective of a great print that satisfies your vision for the image in the initial printing—it only makes logical sense.  It will also give you consistency in your printing from image to image.  Otherwise, why not just start with an image, invert it and make a negative of any unknown density without a curve and keep fiddling with it until you get what you want in the print.

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson

Precision Digital Negatives - The System
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - A STAIN on our Nation's History

In a message dated 10/24/06 4:57:55 PM, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:

I  remember her not only saying that, but indeed challenging Sandy to 
a print shoot-out between carbon and gum, using the same image. But 
to be fair,  I also remember her backing off from that claim as the 
discussion went on.  I went back and looked at my own archives, to 
check my memory, but  I don't seem to have kept that discussion.  Her 
print when posted, I see from my archives, was compared with a 
platinum print rather than a carbon print, and it didn't provide much 
of a comparison to the platinum print, as I recall.  The URL is no 
longer active.