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

Re: Second tricolor print (repro)

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: Second tricolor print (repro)
  • From: Keith Gerling <keith.gerling@gmail.com>
  • Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:29:03 -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=jGs6IyS8QAgnJX9gZGy42H3edicka4HfQv+ptzQ9Pec=;b=eJeeb/09Pxun6kFFNdgwMy+0R4VB1yJBUwApWW0jTAY/qXiFMHb0dyzeFbdk7mzs9lrrOVJRIwPEWxr5ZOt1TvfIB/rflqVHl+LVLysFvcWioJl5q4nuOb+LbijbJmjQRviKuA5GM0EgibhkXRTIkoVFinei6/Rgv52XDRFokl0=
  • 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=Ni9xNA6Pxsv1rL7QdC5X7IU89OXEm3oZ+DkHOjLfIHMZj2D0T3/WMp/sFNxQzl6p4CDDCdb1qg+3QLXqZ38XJAv7iDn5a6cQL+Hj6j1VGofmmKzSAj7PJQGe1+FTFRblQ96zIG/VWa6J8uyGYN8IVKXcH1ADVuGdNOap/iymXUk=
  • In-reply-to: <49259.>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • References: <50350.><49259.>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

Hi Loris,

They both look good!  On my screen, I prefer the shadows (blacks) in
the first version.  They seem more neutral.   This is the kind of work
that I like to make: the "hard" textures of the stone and concrete - I
just love that stuff!


2008/10/9 Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>:
> I've made a much much better (but still flawed) reproduction. The old one
> looks terrible now!
> See it below:
> http://tinyurl.com/4v9aon
> (The bricks are still too orange, they're more redder actually. And the
> leaves are real too cyan, they're true dark leaf color. Plus, the upper
> left side still shines. But that was all I could do - fiddled with
> settings for at least a half hour...)
> BTW, thanks all for encouraging comments (despite the awful repro).
> Regards,
> Loris.
> P.S. Making tricolor gums reminded me how nice was to make color photos.
> I'm not working with color since 2002 -> eventually it seems that I missed
> color photography a lot! I see for myself a long future of exclusive color
> photography + tricolor gum printing...
> 9 Ekim 2008, Perşembe, 2:17 am tarihinde, Loris Medici yazmış:
>> 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.