Re: Printing gum with little pigment
You're welcome, although I'd caution that this is just two unrelated
step tablets that I pulled out of a box that happened to be made
using the same pigment at different concentrations, not anything
that could be called a proper test. I wouldn't put too much weight
on it, but yes, these two step prints do seem to support your
observations. Like you, I wish more people would provide actual
step prints with exposure and development info, to add to the
database of information on this rather fundamental question.
On Jan 19, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Marek Matusz wrote:
This is exactly was I found and was trying to illustrate and
totally agrees with my observations. I was hoping more people would
chime in with their illustrations on the subject.
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:25:15 -0800
> From: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Printing gum with little pigment
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Marek Matusz wrote:
> > Loris,
> > Here is where the argument breaks down. What you consider a weak/
> > moderate pigment I might be using and defining as strong. The only
> > way for you to convince yourself of the validity of your
> > is to cut the pigment concentration in half or quarter and print
> > something side by side. I am looking for people that have done it
> > already and can share the actual prints/test strips.
> Okay, this is all I found in an afternoon of searching through boxes
> of test strips and test prints, that would serve the purpose. It
> would have taken me less time to just go down and print some, but I
> don't want to go down there; it's cold. . :--) Anyway, here is a
> comparison of two Stouffer 21-step prints in Prussian at two
> different pigment concentrations; it is consistent with your
> observations. These would have been exposed and developed in a way
> to yield the optimal DMax and maximum number of steps for each mix,
> per the instructions on my site.
> Hope that's useful,
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.