U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Overexposeure was Re:Pinhole gums

Re: Overexposeure was Re:Pinhole gums

Hi Katharine,

Finally found the cat, and we just got home. Whew. It's been pouring rain here for 2 days. Anyway, I sized this particular batch of paper (maybe 25 sheets, both Rives and Fabriano) outside in dry colder than normal weather. Then, over the next few days, I tried printing on both kinds of paper-- I had trouble with every one I tried, though I still have some left. I gave up after a while, thinking it might be my darkroom space which is colder than the rest of the house, but the temperature in there was probably about 60 degrees.

I would leave the print in water for hours-- picking it up, nothing had changed from the time I took it out of the vacuum frame. I ran water across it-- still nothing. I then brushed it fairly hard, and that helped-- you could see an image, though there was staining in all the light areas. I only tried one coat on these, because I just didn't like the way it looked-- but on several of them, I did get a fully developed image-- only after brushing continuously. So it sounds like overexposure and looked like something that just hadn't been sized at all (to me).

On Nov 30, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:

Diana, I keep thinking you're gone, but if you're still there, two quick questions:

(1) I'm confused about the conditions under which you're having these printing problems. Was it only when the weather was cold and dry, or is it any time you use the paper that was sized when it was cold and dry, regardless of present conditions?

(2) You said that brushing "helped" but that the image essentially didn't develop; I don't understand that. Are you saying that even with brushing, the image didn't fully develop, or that brushing after a long soaking that didn't develop an image would eventually result in a fully developed image?

On Nov 30, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:

Hey Mark,

That's a thought. As advised by the woman at Photographers Formulary, I keep the bottled glut in the refrigerator, so when I get ready to use it, I take it out and have never even bothered to warm it up-- I just add the required amount in the warmed up gelatin. But I guess that could have happened. I did have the gelatin in one of those electric glue pots that keep everything at a constant 140 degrees, so it stayed warm-- until I was coating, but I was very quick about it-- I think maybe it just dried too quickly. I also used different types of paper when sizing, both Fabriano and Rives BFK, and got the same results from both. The only difference in what I normally do was the (relative) excessive dry cold.

On Nov 30, 2008, at 2:16 PM, ender100 wrote:

Could it be that the hardening agent you are using for the gelatin did not activate in the cold well and then when you coated with the gum, it was causing a hardening of the gum?

I would try sizing a sheet in "normal" temperature and humidity and then try a gum print on it and see what happens.

Fall seems to be when lots of people have problems with printing due to changes in temperature and humidity.

Best Wishes,

Mark Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives
PDN Print Forum @ Yahoo! Groups
Mark Nelson Photography

On Nov 30, 2008, at 1:11:45 PM, "Diana Bloomfield" <dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net> wrote:
From:"Diana Bloomfield" <dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net>
Subject:Re: Overexposeure was Re:Pinhole gums
Date:November 30, 2008 1:11:45 PM CST
Hey Katharine, David- Still here-- we were on our way out the door to catch a ferry to get back home, and then our cat managed to hide herself so we couldn't leave. We finally found her hiding in a closet-- anyway-- as far as overexposure-- that is what it sounds like, though I was using the same exposure times as before. So-- since this was without the usual humidity, it couldn't have been overexposure, right? On Nov 30, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2008, at 10:51 AM, davidhatton@totalise.co.uk wrote: > >> That's right Katherine. Higher humidity faster printing..What was >> I thinking?? >> >> It just looks that there is some kind of over-exposure thing going >> on here.., hmmm > > Yeah, I know, it's confusing, and I agree that it looks like > overexposure, that or possibly (but less likely IMO) pigment > stain. I'm trying to work up a flow chart kind of thing that > would help us organize what variables and elements we're looking > at, because reading back through the thread I found the discussion > very confusing. Stay tuned... > kt