Re: ALICE+ACEAIQAhACE- GORDON+ACEAIQAh-

[Jeremy Moore <jeremydmoore@gmail.com>]

ditto.

On 4/12/07, Christina Z. Anderson <zphoto@montana.net> wrote:

Is there any way we can delete this email address from the alt list because
every time I send a message to the list I get this in return.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: < postmaster@fbc.local>
To: <zphoto@montana.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:41 AM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)


> This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
>
> Delivery to the following recipients failed.
>
>       formic@alice.it
>
>
>
>

THANKS Roman, this is what is so great about this list!!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "roman sokoler" <sokoler@post3.tele.dk>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: continued solarplate notes


> Susan , Chris
>
>
>
> I know very little about photogravure but I do know Danish - my native
> language - so here comes my translation of the text by Eli Ponsaing :
>
>
>
> UV light, mercury lamp hbr 125, coil bhl 125 or 144, metal halide lamp ,
> xenon lamp. Not all sources of light are suited for our copying.
> Wavelengths from 400-360 micron in the ultraviolet spectrum are needed. By
> the use of FP-plates for photogravure a punctual light source is the best,
> which has so small an extension as possible. This kind of light is found
> in mercury lamp, sun lamp, xenon lamp, metal halide lamp and carbon arc
> lamp.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps you.
>
>
> Roman Sokoler
> Denmark
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SusanV" <susanvoss3@gmail.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: continued solarplate notes
>
>
>> 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)
>>
>> susan
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> susan
>> gravure blog at www.susanvossgravures.blogspot.com
>> website www.dalyvoss.com
>
>