Re: Second tricolor print (repro)

[Keith Gerling <keith.gerling@gmail.com>]

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!

Keith

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.
>
>