U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: continued solarplate notes

Re: continued solarplate notes

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: continued solarplate notes
  • From: SusanV <susanvoss3@gmail.com>
  • Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:18:45 -0400
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;b=sMlK+Ya0dJJbx9NfFqm6ipkGOLnGIFgVACD5h13S+8DlJpeqNie+S4iRYeBCV5hxsdWAd2p9Mx/1jnZkGYLFe2uUBI/xjsIJNM3nzdPBU/16rR7+Nvp2PyQ/GdxD8TVwqCCBm388BEAyTZlf9RSs9zBaxO+PTh24O4kf51lwfTw=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;b=bxPYyb6/k6TUuu7l41D4DKDc8qxnIk4h5UethNUeO167+oi/iurPTBcjqoK2Z1i0KYBw/2e9kG9E/O35mlF1IApRTnBvOXgzUDrkhBMB1GX5t4Q6XpWleLNejWHI+0Ha/roJqZKlR/8N32RkGJ3QeOpBxGJ09Txb/OBQCdscfXE=
  • In-reply-to: <2de1e7ed0704080815x6e74fb5i5beb2845313f9472@mail.gmail.com>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • References: <000901c779e7$94155220$0400a8c0@DC5YX7B1><461904CB.1020404@terabear.com><2de1e7ed0704080815x6e74fb5i5beb2845313f9472@mail.gmail.com>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

Oh, and warming the plate is common when working with copper or zinc
printing plates.  it makes the ink "melt" into the surface and move
around easier.  I've been afraid to warm the polymer ever since I
melted some in the oven trying to warm-dry it.  I do however, work my
ink on a warm surface sometimes... been experimenting with that.  I
use a large ceramic tile, and sometimes I warm it with a hot pad under
it.  Not so sure it's worth the trouble though unless the studio is
especially cold.


On 4/8/07, SusanV <susanvoss3@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Chris,

thanks for taking time to post this info!  Very interesting stuff.  I
look forward to someone jumping in here to translate... one of the
many nice things about this list :o)


On 4/8/07, Jon Lybrook <jon@terabear.com> wrote:
> \Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> > 2.  Exposing is done in 3 stages--main exposure first for **15**
> > minutes with the light source at 1/2 the distance of the aquatint
> > exposure. Aquatint exposure SECOND--**15** minutes with the distance
> > of the light 1 1/2 the diagonal of the vacuum frame measure.  Post
> > exposure 5 minutes. (on a Stouffers dark steps 8, 9, and 10 should be
> > "clearly defined").
> Maybe he's using a maglight to make his exposures.  ;-)
> > With the inverse square law of light 1/2 the distance of the positive
> > means it is 4x the length of exposure, correct?  So Ponsaing's ratio
> > of exposure is 4pos/1aquatint.  Can you believe the length of his
> > times??!!  I can't read the text to see what his light source is,
> > though, unfortunately. I can glean that he is using Japanese plates KM73.
> >
> > Oh, here are his light choices:  "uv lys, kviksolvdamplampe hpr 125,
> > drosselspole bhl 125 eller l44, metalhalogenhampe, xenon lampe. And
> > then Ikke alle lyskilder er egnede til vor kopiering.  Der kraeves
> > lysbolgelaengder mellem 400-360 my i det ultraviolet-te omrade af
> > spektret. Ved anvendelse af FP-plader til dybtryk, er punktlys bedst
> > egnet, d.v.s. at lyskilden har sa lille en udstraekning som muligt.
> > Dette lys findes i kviksolvdamplampe, hojfjeldssol, xenonlampe,
> > metalhalogenlampe og kulbuelampe.
> >
> > My interest in the light source choice is to compare his longer
> > exposures with what we are doing with KM73s.  What he is doing is
> > still not disproving my theory that the length of exposure is not as
> > crucial as the ratio, unless, say, he is using REALLY weak bulbs which
> > I don't think is true--I can at least decipher halogen in there. But
> > it still supports the theory that, like gum, the longer exposure (to a
> > point) the thicker the layer of goo on top of the substrate, whence
> > comes Welden's description of the forgiving latitude of exposure of
> > the plates, that exposure is not so crucial.
> So based on your theory Chris, if my ratio is 1:1 screen/image, I could
> do 10 seconds/ 10 seconds, or 1min/1min, or 15min/15min and it wouldn't
> make a huge difference?  This might be true to some degree if one is
> using imagesetter film for both, since the density of imagesetter film
> is so heavy.   I'd expect the dots would change size as time is
> increased though, since the longer exposures would allow more light to
> sneak underneath the edges of the dots.  Easy enough to test
> Thanks for the posting!
> Jon

gravure blog at www.susanvossgravures.blogspot.com
website www.dalyvoss.com

gravure blog at www.susanvossgravures.blogspot.com
website www.dalyvoss.com