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
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.)
9 Ekim 2008, Perşembe, 9:31 am tarihinde, firstname.lastname@example.org 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 /
> (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
> 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
> upper left corner (print wasn't absolutely flat), so it's an
> 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
> 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