RE: Tricolor gum, order of layers

[Marek Matusz <marekmatusz@hotmail.com>]

Loris,
WHy did you switch to paper negatives? Technical or artistic reason? I enjoy following this exchange and you print making adventure.
Marek

> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:13:09 -0700
> From: kthayer@pacifier.com
> Subject: Re: Tricolor gum, order of layers
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>
> Hi Loris,
> Aaah, I get it now. You erased and reprinted the cyan layer.
> Thanks, and sorry for being so dense.
>
> Hmm, that's very interesting about the pointillism; by "composite
> grayscale" you mean greyscale printed with color inks, I assume.
> That's how I've always printed my paper negatives, and I haven't ever
> got that effect, except for the one time I mentioned when I used
> pencil to make changes on the paper negative. I wonder what the
> difference is, whether it's oiled or not, or maybe the kind of
> paper? The paper that's always worked best for me has been Epson
> Photo Quality Inkjet Paper, (now called Presentation Paper Matte --
> same stock number, different name), oiled. I used to use mineral
> oil, til Keith suggested baby oil and I switched over. Well, it
> doesn't matter, I'm just curious ; I like to try to understand things
> that aren't immediately obvious to me.
>
> You're most welcome, glad to offer what help I can, although
> ultimately it's gum that teaches its requirements and principles to
> those who are willing to learn from it; all I can do is point in a
> general direction.
> Katharine
>
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Loris Medici wrote:
>
> > Hi Katharine.
> >
> > It's in the print, it's not a scanning artifact. In my case I think
> > it's
> > due to using composite grayscale paper negatives; because before using
> > paper negs, I had printed using colorized transparency negatives and I
> > haven't had a such pointillistic effect. Instead, the tones I got were
> > super-smooth.
> >
> > I fully erased the misregistered cyan layer (using brutal force) and
> > printed it again. (That's why it took more than 2-3 hours to share the
> > final result - I force dry with a hair dryer, therefore I can work
> > quickly...)
> >
> > Thanks much - for the direct and indirect (website) help you provided,
> > Loris.
> >
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Loris, the next one will be a lot easier.
> >
> > Two comments: (1) I was interested in the pointillistic effect, the
> > breaking up of color into bits. (I'm assuming that's in the print and
> > not a scanner artifact). Not sure if that's a function of your
> > paper negatives (although I've used paper negatives a great deal in
> > tricolor and never seen that, but I've always oiled them, so maybe
> > that's the difference) or whether it's due to your cleaning effort,
> > but it's a very interesting effect, like some vintage autochromes. I
> > think it's fascinating, and unique (and I'll be really disappointed
> > if it turns out it's just a scanner artifact). The only time I ever
> > got an effect like this was once when I did some pencil work on the
> > paper separations, the color broke up like that.
> >
> > I wasn't sure I understood what you meant about erasing the cyan
> > layer... it sounds like you were saying you erased the whole cyan
> > layer, but obviously you didn't, as there's significant value added
> > between the two-layer and three-layer print.
> >
> > (2) I read somewhere that with color printing, the eye and brain have
> > a wide tolerance for perceiving a color representation as "right."
> > The main thing is getting the values right; if the tonal
> > relationships are right, then you can hang any kind of color on that
> > structure and it doesn't matter, the image will work. This is not
> > to suggest that there's anything the matter with your color palette,
> > at all, but just that my first impression was, "it works," and then I
> > got to looking closer at the pointillism and the imperfections that
> > you mentioned. They don't detract anything, in fact add interest,
> > because the image works as a whole, because you've got a good tonal
> > structure there. Sure, room for improvement if you say so, but
> > definitely "can be considered as good" and besides, isn't there
> > always room for improvement, for all of us. Thanks for sharing, that
> > was quite interesting.
> > Katharine
> >
> >
> >
>
>

---

Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn “10 hidden secrets” from Jamie. Learn Now