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)

Got it! hehehehehe that makes sense—you are right, blown out highlights are worse than blocked up shadows.

On Oct 18, 2008, at 4:09:11 PM, "Loris Medici" <mail@loris.medici.name> wrote:
From:"Loris Medici" <mail@loris.medici.name>
Subject:Re: Gum calibration (was: Paper negatives- Ink Selection)
Date:October 18, 2008 4:09:11 PM CDT
To:alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
18 Ekim 2008, Cumartesi, 11:57 pm tarihinde, Loris Medici yazmış:
> ...
> If you're not doing it according to the ideal (such as: not
> using a process adjustment curve - or any other means to translate linear
> source image tones to the characteristic curve of the target process - to
> start with...)
> ...

Forgot to add the actual point! Sorry, it's late here :)

To be not misunderstood, change the text above with:
(such as: not using a negative with a DR compatible to your current
coating solution, plus, not using a process adjustment curve - or any
other means to translate linear source image tones to the characteristic
curve of the target process, to start with)