Re: Gum calibration (was: Paper negatives- Ink Selection)
Keith, if I could jump in here, I've never seen any particular correlation between how the print looks after exposure (whether you can see an image in the undeveloped print) and the quality or tonality of the developed print, and I used to puzzle about that quite a lot, years ago, why sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't see an image after exposure, and how little difference a visible image after exposure seemed to make as far as the final product. I'm tempted to speculate that a more contrasty negative, like Loris's and like the ones I used in those early years (laser printer negatives) would be more likely to produce a visible image after exposure, but since that's the only kind of negative I ever used in those days and I didn't always get a visible image after exposure, that couldn't be a sufficient explanation. The negatives I use now are very thin and after exposure there's never any evident image at all, but they print a full tonal range. I'd need to see the print after development; in my experience the print before development doesn't tell me anything useful at all. Just my 2cents, Katharine On Oct 17, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Keith Gerling wrote: 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).
|