U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: solarized gums?

Re: solarized gums?



On Feb 14, 2007, at 4:38 AM, ilana swerdlin wrote:


I think the setup I have wants to have longer exposures. So when I tried
less pigment/gum after this advice, I needed longer exposure [Also because I
used an increased amount of dichromate]
Sorry, I didn't notice this part earlier. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here, but an increased concentration of dichromate should require less exposure, not more. And usually, less of the same pigment also requires less exposure than a heavier pigment mix. So I'm not sure what's going on here. But If you want to be able to tell later how to fix a similar problem, it's best to change only one variable at a time.

I wish I could see what you've got; it would help a lot. Good luck,
Katharine



Gum is amazing. Thanks for the help.

ilana



-----Original Message-----
From: Loris Medici [mailto:mail@loris.medici.name]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:22 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: solarized gums?

Hi Katharine,

This (as Ilana describes) is no doubt the phenomenon you name "tonal
inversion". I've read the page that you wrote about this issue again
and don't agree with you in:

"...The remedy, of course, the way to eliminate the tonal inversion,
is simply to reduce the pigment/gum ratio..."

Because I've experienced the same effect with a lightly pigmented blue
31-step tablet print before. See:

http://www.loris.medici.name/Gum-Test-01.jpg

The scan doesn't show it well but, to my bare eyes there's definitely
paper white at steps 18, 19 (and maybe 20) + there's definitely tone
(where there shouldn't be) at steps 20+.

I guess we'll agree that the pigment concentration I used on that
print is not excessive since that is easily judged by the scan -> this
is Phtalo Blue; as we all know, this is a dark pigment with immense
covering power...

Regards,
Loris.

--------

Hi Ilana,
My own experience, observations and tests don't support the notion
that failure to clear (aka pigment stain) is a function of
underexposure, so I wouldn't agree with your tentative conclusion that
"parts that should clear are not, because they have not received
enough light." If you're interested, some test strips showing the lack
of relationship I found between stain and exposure are here:

http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/stainexposure.html

It sounds like what is happening to your highlights, if I understand
the description accurately, is a phenomenon some people call "tonal
inversion." For my take on this phenom, see

http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/tonalinversion.html

Hope any of that is useful to you,
Katharine