U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Second tricolor print (repro)

Re: Second tricolor print (repro)

David (and Jacek) thank you! I think the pigments I chose are right&good...

The actual print is much much better than the digital camera reproduction
(I have to elaborate on this -> my repro's suck). I hold the print on my
hands right now, and the screen version looks very bad compared to it. (It
was late when I was processing the repro.) Will replace it with a proper
scan ASAP...

I was surprised by the fact that I could do a nice print in just few
tries. I guess it's due to long time heavy reading / theoretical
preparation (I'm grateful for the fact that masters share their wast
knowledge / experience generously.)

Thanks again,

9 Ekim 2008, Perşembe, 9:31 am tarihinde, davidhatton@totalise.co.uk yazmış:
>  That's a nice gumprint Loris! Well done!
>  David H
>  On Oct 9 2008, Loris Medici wrote:
>  Hi all,
>  I finished my second tricolor gum print tonight. See below:
>  Image -> http://tinyurl.com/4t74l4
>  Detail -> http://tinyurl.com/4bsh45
>  Same printing procedure (negative making, pigments, dichromate ratio,
>  exposure, development and whatnot...) as the first one.
>  a) There's no pointillistic effect on this one -> which concludes
> that the
>  pointillism of the first one can be attributed to erasing - harshly - the
>  badly registered cyan layer and then reprinting it. Probably the
>  pointillism was caused by the unregistered cyan pigment stain /
> leftovers.
>  (Do you buy that?)
>  b) The non oiled paper negatives work perfectly -> sharp image with good
>  tonality. The actual size of the label is 6.5mm on print (see detail) and
>  you can read each and every letter / number on that label.
>  c) This is a digital camera reproduction since the actual image size
> won't
>  allow me to scan it (9.5x12"). I couldn't set the custom white
> balance for
>  that shot (due the peculiar lightsource) + there's a reflection on
> the
>  upper left corner (print wasn't absolutely flat), so it's an
> approximation
>  of the real print. The actual print is colder (bricks are redder, not as
>  orange as depicted + highlights are less yellow). Will try to find an A3
>  scanner later, in order to scan it properly.
>  The image itself isn't much special; I just took it because it was a
>  colorful scene with lots of texture (thinking "ah, that could do
> well for
>  a tricolor gum practice")...
>  I guess I'm close - to ultimate success(!) (read as, to be satisfied
> with
>  what I get). I need to rework the curve, I think I can get better shadow
>  detail -> this one's a little weak. I would be grateful if you share
> your
>  thoughts.
>  Regards,
>  Loris.