Paul,
I found that printing a sample negative on a 4x6 glossy paper is a gtreat way to preview and judge the negative. Definitely cheaper then printing large transparency and then deciding it is no good. AT least for my black/yellow negatives. Since I only print one color the visual density of it is proportional to UV density.
Marek
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:51:37 -0700
From: viapiano@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum attempt
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
As I continue on my journey, I decided to look at some CMY separations (printed pos, not negative) on the web tonight and in some books I have (Benson - The Printed Picture). I wanted to see what they looked like in terms of relative density, etc. It was interesting to note that the Y separations, looked much denser than the C and M. In fact, large parts of the shadows look almost blocked on the Y.
I was curious because today I printed a first layer Y, using more pigment in the mixture (1 gram / 9ml gum) rather than my previous (.6 gram / 9ml gum). The neg remained the same and I cleared for 20 minutes, and it looks much darker than any other Y layer I've printed thus far, but holding detail quite well.
Tomorrow I'll try to finish it and see what I come up with. I think this is a move in the right direction.
Thanks for letting me collect my thoughts here...
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum attempt
Christina and all...
As I adjust one variable at a time and ponder the results, I feel I'm honing in on a stable workflow. The considerable advice and help from many including yourself, Keith, Marek, Jim, Loris and Katharine has been absolutely invaluable.
I'm able to do some work today and tomorrow, so I'll see what I can get happening.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum attempt
Sounds like you got it all under control, then, Paul, except for the one ingredient, then, of practice practice practice....
But as we learn so often on this list, what may work for Keith with his particular negatives doesn't always directly translate. I'm not sure what negatives Keith uses--he used to use imagesetter.
I think all the advice Marek gave is great advice so I won't repeat....
Chris
__________________
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum attempt
Christina...
My exposures are approx 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 minutes in the sun (unwavering bright, cloudless So California sun, mid-day).
It takes about 10-15 to see pigment in the water.
Negs are made with an Epson 3800 and its Ultrachrome 3 ink set (standard) and using QTR as the RIP.
I should mention that I found out how to reduce density with QTR last night, and will be trying that in the next few days.
I use WN Cadmium Yellow Pale, Sennelier Bright Red, WN Pthalo Ble GS pigments on Fabriano EW 140 lb.
Gum mixture is: .6g pigment / 9ml gum to 12ml pot dich (13%)
I also should mention that my intention is to get a full rendition 3 layer print, a la Keith Taylor (those are his ratios above). I've read his Ag article (available on Lulu for a pittance) and also there is now a great feature in the May/June View Camera.
Thanks!
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum attempt
How long is your exposure, Paul, and when you put it in the developing water, does it "stream off" the image area immediately or gradually?
How do you make your negs? What printer, ink, etc.?
Chris
__________________
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 7:08 PM
Subject: another 3 layer gum attempt
Hello everyone...hope you had a nice weekend.
I tried another 3 layer gum print (same image as before) and althought the colors are better than the last time I did 3 layers only, I'm not getting enough color down to give my print a nice strong density. I'm getting good strong color in the clear borders...
I'm getting good clearing in approx 20-40 minutes...
My guess is I should be using a less dense negative. Do you all concur?
Thanks to everyone for your help...
Paul
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
|