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)

Hi again!

40 minutes, but the last 10 was for being sure (very very little pigment
came off actually), so accepting it as 30 minutes wouldn't be much wrong.


17 Ekim 2008, Cuma, 11:55 pm tarihinde, Keith Gerling yazmış:
> 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.