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)

19 Ekim 2008, Pazar, 1:57 am tarihinde, Katharine Thayer yazmış:
> ...
> As I said, I'll be glad to be convinced by actual data,   but I'm
> certainly not persuaded by the theoretical argument that since Loris
> and Keith do everything the same except how they produce the
> negative, then the difference  in their exposure times must be
> because Keith isn't doing his negatives right.  There are just too
> many things that could be different enough to account for the
> difference, without bringing the negatives into it, and I am just
> really philosophically opposed to any suggestion that anyone is doing
> something "wrong" in their gum practice; I will always resist that
> kind of characterization of one gum printer by another.   But I've
> made the point and will stand by for actual data to the contrary.
> I think people read too much into what I say sometimes; I'm certainly
> not against calibrating and developing curves for negatives.  All I'm
> saying is that if you're doing it with the goal of reducing your
> exposure times, my experience suggests you will be disappointed.
> ...

Thanks for clarifying & making your points clearly. I'm not saying that
Keith's (or any other person's) printing methods (in a package / system &
practical standpoint) are "wrong" (that would be dumb; especially while
his gorgeous prints speak for themselves), no characterizations here. But
on the other hand, methinks there are indeed some "rights" in the context
of making digital negatives, that when taken into account, can get your
life easier in the subsequent steps of your printing system... (Myself
being a nice example to this; that old house was my very 2nd tricolor gum
print. Of course this is not said disregarding / forgetting the
contribution by the info presented on your site, and the contributions of
many others in the list, other sites and books...)

Thanks again,