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)

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.