U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Gum calibration (was: Paper negatives- Ink Selection)

Re: Gum calibration (was: Paper negatives- Ink Selection)

Color is accurate (not 100% perfect but very close).

1) Could browner mean more exposure? If so, then that means your shadows
get much more exposure than mines, which is something relatively
comparable (because of same negative media - and mines are non oiled, to
remind), plus, since your highlights don't cook (presumably), that should
mean your blacks in the negative are way denser than mines... This is how
I interpret. What do you think?

2) I don't understand this, which parts of the image are invisible in yours?


17 Ekim 2008, Cuma, 11:07 pm tarihinde, Keith Gerling yazmış:
> Yes.  If that color is accurate, I would say that my
> exposed-non-developed prints are, 1) browner than this, and 2)  not as
> much detail can be observed on mine. Very interesting.  You've got the
> entire image visible in an un-developed picture.
> 2008/10/17 Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>:
>> BTW, see the just exposed yellow layer of the same image (on Fabriano):
>> http://tinyurl.com/58zoxu
>> Anything unusual to your eyes?
>> Thanks,
>> Loris.