Re: 2 tricolor gums

[Keith Gerling <keith.gerling@gmail.com>]

I had no experience judging paper weight!!  But yes, I do feel rather
silly wondering why the 24lb was so slow.  Being thinner, the 18lb
absorbs less ink and the negs are perfect un-oiled.

The NuArc is great (thanks Erie!!).  The vacuum doesn't work, but I do
gum - I don't need no steenking vacuum!

2008/11/21 Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>:
> First of all congratulations on your new light source. Does the vacuum
> frame work? If yes that's definitely a very nice setup then -> I want one
> also! I hope I will have some time soon, to build mine...
>
> Whoa!? That makes me laugh when thinking about all that speculation we did
> on exposure times before :)
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
>
> 21 Kasım 2008, Cuma, 11:28 pm tarihinde, Keith Gerling yazmış:
>> Well, Loris, it's kind of strange how that worked out.  I was loading
>> a new roll of paper on the printer and it was much thinner than the
>> 18LB I had used before.  It turns out that I had been using 24LB that
>> was mis-labeled.  My exposure times are much shorter now.  And
>> contrary to what I've been told about the NuArc, it is MUCH faster
>> than my fluorescent bulbs.
>>
>> The non-oiled 18LB is much more splotchy and grainy than the oiled
>> 24LB.  I tried using it for cyanotype and the results were horrible.
>> But it is very nice not having to deal with those oily negatives.
>>
>> 2008/11/21 Loris Medici <mail@loris.medici.name>:
>>> Great job Keith! You seem to always find a way to to the "undoable" ;)
>>> With so much dedication and hard work I'm sure you'll bring these to
>>> your
>>> liking (they're beatiful to my eyes)...
>>>
>>> BTW, I see that you started using non-oiled negatives; what about your
>>> exposure times? Are they still unbearably long or did you change
>>> something?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Loris.
>
>