I agree with Marek; this goes back to what I said about an earlier
post of Loris's, that the eye and mind together "read" a wide variety
of color palettes as "realistic color" as long as the tonal
relationships are proportionally accurate.
Loris, thanks for your answers to my questions, which support my
earlier thought that I don't believe this is stain (maybe even in the
specular highlight on top of the acorn) I think it's just the same
thing we were talking about before, that the graininess of the paper
negative scatters the color into discrete dots rather than the
continuous mixed color that you'd get by overlaying continuous gum
layers over each other. I agree with Marek that the pointillistic
effect is very attractive and could be exploited to good effect, but
as long as you use the negatives you use, you're always going to get
this color scattering in all but the darkest areas, where it is
obscured because the pigment is laid down densely enough in all the
layers so that the spaces between the dots don't show. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with this pointillistic effect, but it
seems to me it would make it more difficult to achieve your other
goal of achieving a perfect tonal scale in perfect neutral greys this
way. The two effects seem, maybe not mutually exclusive, but
certainly not very mutually compatible either. Just a thought.
On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Marek Matusz wrote:
WHat a beautiful print. While the colors are not photo-realistic,
they are absolutely convincing. What I mean is that if you were to
post the original photo we would say that your interpretation is
so different. Well, I think that is the point to print a "different
print". I just adore the background that has a mix of random
It seems that your stripe pattern is only evident in the magenta
negative. It is quite distractive from the randomness of the
background. I wonder why that is the case.
It seems that you have arrived at a very balanced combination of
pigment ratioes, gum thickness and exposure/development.
Do yo need any more encouragement?
Hope to see some more work
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:37:27 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: acorns(!)
> To: email@example.com
> >> 2008/10/30 Loris Medici <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> >>> Hi Keith,
> >>> BTW, see my latest print here:
> >>> http://www.loris.medici.name/gum/acrons_03_ymc_sm.jpg
> >>> Partial calibration; single curve for all colors (devised for
> >>> magenta),
> >>> stock yellow and magenta solutions, eyeballing cyan from tube...
> >>> The horizontal bands are the effect of paper negative.
> >>> (Unfortunately some
> >>> sheets show that pattern.) Print size 7x10".
> >>> There's considerably more staining than I'd like to have, but
> >>> still works
> >>> for me...
> Thanks for sharing your progress, Loris. A couple of questions:
> (1) what is the background color supposed to be? Is it white except
> for the shadows under the figures, or is there some tone there?
> (2) remind me what you use for size?
> The reason I'm asking these questions is that I'm not entirely
> convinced that what you're calling stain is actually stain, but I
> need a little more information to be more confident about what I
> think is going on.
> I can't quite see the relationship between what you've said you've
> done here and what you said you were proposing to do, but that's
> with me. I'd rather see you (or anyone) making gum prints than
> getting lost in calibration and testing, and besides, it's more fun
> to make pictures. (I can say this after spending some time a year or
> two ago printing calibration charts myself).
Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive. Start