Re: Gum calibration (was: Paper negatives- Ink Selection)
I am going to look more carefully at my next print, but off-hand I would say that I can see very little highlight detail in my prints before development. I've had occasions where I could barely detect any image at all, but have still come up with a full-toned print after development. How long did it take to develop that print? 2008/10/17 Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>: > 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? > > Regards, > Loris. > > > 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. > >
|