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 <email@example.com>:
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>>> BTW, see the just exposed yellow layer of the same image (on Fabriano):
>>> Anything unusual to your eyes?