Re: Paper negatives- Ink Selection&Baden-Baden
On 15 okt 2008, at 19:38, davidhatton@totalise.co.uk wrote:
Hi Henk,
Gorgeous oilprint. What is the difference, apart from weight of
course, between 300 and 350 gsm paper? Is it the finish?
Hi David,
To be honest : I don't know, i bought some time ago some Fabriano nr
5 ; I coated with SE2 and made a bromoil print.
The inking surprised me, so i went back to buy some more; he was an
old artist and i couldn't find the button to stop him telling
stories; anyway i realized that it wasn't the Fabriano nr 5 300 grams
i normally used and from that time i always try to find the 350 grs,
for me it works better, also for oil-printing.
But, the Magnani Litho is also a good choice, and cheaper.
(by the way, the production for the paperbasket is far more bigger
than the one for my next exhibition, to produce acceptable results is
still unpredictable, even after more than 15 years)
Cheers,
Henk
Regards
David H
On Oct 14 2008, henk thijs wrote:
I did a lot of paper- and Arista half tone negs; i used negatives for
cyanotype, gum and oilprinting and i was very often astonished about
two things:
the unpredictable (and often astonishing) results ;
the forgiving aspects of too long or too short exposure times doing
'alt'.
It was the list who first mentioned the dramatic effect on exposure
times due to humidity; so i have some experience and do not trust any
specific rules in order 'to make the perfect gumprint or equivalent';
i measure the amount of paint by eye, vary the exposure by looking a
bit after the humidity, downloaded some 3 dollar tutorials from Dans
Burkholder website for my printer settings and let it go.
Isn't that the way an apple pie is done after years of experience ?
Cheers,
Henk
Baden-Baden Horse racing Oilprint on 350 grs Fabriano nr 5 with
inkjet-plotter-foil negative (exactly same exposure compared to paper
neg ):
http://www.thijs-foto.com/newDESIGN/baden.jpg
On 14 okt 2008, at 23:05, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> Loris, my question was a simple question: on what are you basing
> the statement that your exposure times are shorter than others'?
> because I'm not seeing other gum exposure times in the thread,
> never mind that even if there were, no valid conclusions could be
> drawn from the comparison. Instead of answering the question
> by pointing to posts I missed, or describing the data on which you
> base the assertion, you simply repeated it. It's not a helpful
> answer to the question, but I won't pursue it further; I'll take
> your word that there are these people you know about, somewhere,
> who print exactly as you print, with exactly the same emulsion,
> same paper, same light source, same negative media and exact same
> working procedures (same environmental conditions, we would also
> have to assume) who have to use longer exposure times because
> they're using negatives with more DR, or they're not calibrating,
> or their calibrations are flawed somehow. This is quite a
> remarkable finding, as I've never met two gum printers who use the
> same everything, unless they happen to be taking a workshop
> together and are using premixed emulsions and all other materials
> and equipment supplied by the teacher. Oh well, I don't really
> care, I was just curious. Back to check on my print,
> kt
>
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Loris Medici wrote:
>
>
>> Katharine, don't worry I'm pretty careful about this subject -
>> knowing (by
>> experience) you'll chime in every time it's brought up, to
>> clarify ;) I'm
>> getting older I guess; less and less surprises... ;)
>>
>> I wasn't attributing the short exposure I'm using to curves at
>> all, that
>> was a side note (which should have been enclosed between
parenthesis,
>> sorry). I was trying to say (indirectly) that since the DR
(=density
>> range) and tonal progression of my paper negatives (made with the
>> HP 9180
>> all-inks grayscale setting, using the printer's plain paper
>> profile) are
>> close to ideal (in tricolor gum printing context - which is
>> supported by
>> the fact that the curve I devised for this particular combination
>> is the
>> smoothest and least dramatic one among all curves I did until now),
>> therefore, other people's longer exposure times could be caused by
>> the
>> fact that they're using negatives with more DR, which naturally
will
>> require more exposure and a stronger / more dramatic curve to
>> counterbalance. Or they're not calibrating, or their
calibrations are
>> flawed...
>>
>> Hope it's clear, and makes more sense to you now. I perfectly
>> understand
>> the confusion I may have caused on your part.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Loris.
>>
>> P.S. BTW, I have compared my times with the times of people who use
>> similar light source, emulsion, negative media and working
>> procedures. I'm
>> perfectly aware of the parameters affecting exposure time and pay
>> attention to them.
>>
>>
>> 14 Ekim 2008, Salı, 7:18 pm tarihinde, Katharine Thayer yazmış:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Loris, I'm wondering what data you're basing this last bit on,
that
>>> other people's exposure times are longer than yours. It's
>>> generally
>>> not useful to try to compare exposure times because there are so
>>> many
>>> variables involved, but putting that aside for a moment, I've
>>> looked
>>> back through this thread, and the only reference to exposure
times I
>>> can find is Guido's comparison between oiled and unoiled Epson PQ
>>> paper, 8 vs 48 minutes, with cyanotype. Since it was cyanotype,
>>> and
>>> since the paper is a heavier paper (27 pounds) than yours, it's
not
>>> surprising that his exposure time for unoiled paper would be
longer
>>> than yours, and we haven't even got to light source yet; to reach
>>> immediately to curves to account for a difference in exposure
times
>>> seems rather a long stretch to me.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I've missed other posts that included exposure times
for gum
>>> and paper negatives (my server doesn't accept some of the alt-
photo
>>> mail, so I don't always see all the posts). At any rate, my times
>>> with oiled paper negatives run close to my times with inkjet
>>> transparencies, about 3 minutes, to add to your database on
>>> exposure
>>> times. I don't have any comparison with unoiled paper to offer,
>>> because that's not an option that makes any particular sense to
me.
>>>
>>> But be that as it may, I can't see any reason why curves would
>>> account for a difference in exposure time. After all, the exposure
>>> time is determined before curves are even calculated, at least
>>> that's
>>> how it is with the system I use, and I assume it's the same
with all
>>> systems; the curve doesn't change the exposure time. Besides,
>>> curves
>>> simply redistribute the tones within the print tonal range that
>>> particular emulsion can print under that particular protocol; they
>>> don't extend it, so there's no logical reason curves would have
any
>>> effect on exposure time.
>>> Katharine
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Loris Medici wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I use the grayscale using all inks (not black and gray - if
present
>>>> - inks
>>>> only), plus, I choose plain paper as the media. Fortunately, with
>>>> my inks
>>>> the printer lays just enough ink giving an almost perfect
>>>> negative in
>>>> terms of density range (something around log 1.0), and the
curve I
>>>> use for
>>>> gum prints are is the least drastic and most smooth one among my
>>>> curves
>>>> collection for many processes and paper. In fact, I think that's
>>>> why other
>>>> people's exposure times are considerably longer compared to
>>>> mines...
>>>> (!?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
