Re: Tricolor gum, order of layers
- To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
- Subject: Re: Tricolor gum, order of layers
- From: Keith Gerling <keith.gerling@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:28:54 -0500
- Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
- Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;bh=KYMLdJfmN5OArcBF0V6MCo5UvA/p5QnyebzBmwQ+w40=;b=qC3TE5xveR/rEtzeMc5+MfZ1gQZm/EemruJyxFt+OCypdZTWkXA9ZOGuw+Slnm5JMYqqtW8zZhzyNhRcsyxfMjQr4REnSM5Wsw1bSd4EdFUKGU2r46klE7i5ooYhbBbY49OMShdzNwjWlyIGh2dNwCiNF/p58fkgzbfgjJ1HaEU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references;b=ebOqd4c1+MVcGKlSh6neQgq3jrX1da4TeZ/gY0AoSeRHCZGvFworUzXVYDZjMoXImKopHfonvpA9IZO11q/ESsnlv0ZSDnaQBvnN4nc7mUrXDV97H2NRkknFjntHn4ul18fyGxYwER9dSP1GGEnUHyvCfqIV909h1rp8h6Z2fLk=
- In-reply-to: <49248.85.99.254.37.1222562731.squirrel@loris.medici.name>
- List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
- References: <49248.85.99.254.37.1222562731.squirrel@loris.medici.name>
- Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Loris,
Oil or no-oil on those negs?
Keith
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name> wrote:
> After the 4th try, I decided to go back to my original practice of
> printing in the following sequence: Y, M and C. I had changed this order
> in favor of C, M and Y later because that seemed more logical. But since
> the yellow I prefer is semi-transparent, when printed last it gives the
> image an ugly haze, which lowers dmax and contrast. (The semi-opaque and
> opaque yellows are worse in this aspect.)
>
> Starting with the C layer seemed a better way of doing at first, since
> it's the most problem prone layer + (for those who register by eye,
> looking at the printed image) registration is easier. That way, I could
> discard / reject the print early if the cyan layer goes bad. (BTW, ease of
> registration wasn't an issue to me since I use semi-opaque paper
> negatives...)
>
> Now, because of my pigment choice + the fact that it seems more logical to
> start with the lightest color and finishing with the darkest, I think I'll
> do it in the Y M C order.
>
> See the first two layers here
> 1. Cyan: http://tinyurl.com/4z6zp2
> 2. Cyan + Magenta: http://tinyurl.com/3hyzhh
>
> I guess both layers have too much pigment for tricolor work.
>
> Since both the Cyan PB15:3 and the Magenta PV19 are intense pigments, it's
> very hard to squeeze very little (less than what I used for the sample
> above) pigment from the tubes (into 2.5ml gum, for a print size of
> 8,5x11"), I guess I will also have to prepare stock gum/pigment mixtures.
>
> Whew! Tricolor gum is much tougher than I thought...
>
> P.S. Dear Keith, the 18lbs translucent inkjet bond is wonderful for making
> paper negatives. Thanks much for suggesting it! The results are much much
> better compared to ordinary photocopier paper and the exposure times are
> much shorter too (by -1.5 stop, my current exposure time with UVBL bank
> and 10% ammonium dichromate is around 6:20).
>
>
|