|
Beautiful, Jim...I love comparing notes like
this.
Although there are always way too many variables,
it's still fun to hear the whole story behind a print...
Thanks so much for sharing...
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:22
PM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum
attempt
Paul..You, Katharine and Joe have completely lost me! My guess
is it has something to do with the Everclear that I started ingesting as I
started to read this thread! This is not an RGB but rather a CMYK that I did
this morning. My yellow was a cheap Cotman Cad Orange. I can not read the
numbers (too small or the Everclear?) But, it is a cheap student grade
pigment. I used an inexpensive paper, Canson Montval and exposed using black
lights.
I
really wanted the yellow to be very prominent and I think that it worked well.
My negs were very thin and I exposed for approx 3.5 mins and developed in hot
water for about 10 mins. After the printing with cyanotype I sized with
Gamblin PVA.
Going back for some more Everclear,
Jim
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Katharine Thayer
<kthayer@pacifier.com>
wrote:
Well,
this isn't necessarily an incongruity, as by "contrasty" I wasn't meaning
anything like the range of a palladium negative, just the black digital negs
I used to make that were somewhat denser than the negatives I use now.
As I mentioned, the negatives I use now are so thin they are useless
in the sun, because the rays burn right through them and expose the whole
gum layer. Here's a typical negative used to print gum with a
medium pigment concentration (so not a high DMax). You may not be able
to tell it from the jpeg, but these negatives are so thin I can't tell, just
holding them up and looking at them, what the image is; I have to put them
in front of a white background to see what they are. We're talking
REAL thin. I've learned to write the name of the image on the margin
of the film, so I don't have to go find a white background to determine that
I've got the right negative. You may have seen this before, but maybe
not, because I don't think I've got it linked to anything, I just stuck it
up there one day to illustrate a point I was making on the list.
http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/orangeneg.html
And
yes, you don't want to move the tones up the wedge; that just means you have
to develop longer to open the shadows, but it sounds like you've figured
that out already.
Maybe it's the Everclear going to my head, but if
the DR 2.0 negative printed for 2.5 minutes, then it makes sense,
doesn't it, that a thinner negative printed for 3.5 minutes would be
overexposed? I hope my instructions didn't get you off track; if so I
may need to look at that page again. The point I was trying to make there
was that if you expose for DMax alone, you're going to underexpose for gum,
because you'll get DMax before you get the optimum number of steps retained,
but obviously you don't want to take that too far. If you settle on a
standard development time it shouldn't take more than a couple of wedges to
nail that down.
Katharine
On Jul 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Paul Viapiano
wrote:
Hmmm...ok,
I see that. I just brushed some out of my pigment/gum mix and can see that
it should be a bright sunny yellow, of course.
For my testing
I was using info on your site, re exposure, but I think I'm not
understanding it correctly. You say that you should expose the test strip
for the max amount of steps remaining after development, and I keep
pushing exposure to move tone up the wedge, which I can see is wrong.
But...hmm. In your reply, you mention using a fairly contrasty neg at
under a minute in the sun...dang! I was originally using my digi-palladium
negs which are approx DR 2.0 or slightly higher at 2 1/2 minutes, but the
results were light, light, light ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/3718825618/) with
little contrast...so this is the stuff that stumps
me.
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine
Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, July
21, 2009 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum
attempt
Wow, if that's cadmium yellow light, then it's way
overexposed; I've
never seen a pale yellow do that before.
Caveat: I haven't worked
with cadmiums much except for test
prints, as I find them too opaque
for my taste, but it didn't do that
on the test prints I made with
it. I'd say try cutting the
exposure in half. My sun exposures with
a black (fairly
contrasty) negative tend to be under a minute.
I agree that
it's more likely overexposure than staining; that
doesn't look like
stain to me.
Katharine
On Jul 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM,
Paul Viapiano wrote:
Much
thanks Joseph and Katharine...!!!
I'll study your replies and
reflect on what I need to do next.
Pigment is WN Cad Yellow Pale
- PY 35
Concentration is 1 gram pigment to 9ml gum
Using .75ml of
that mixture to 1ml potassium dichromate (for a 4x5 print)
Sun
exposure for 3 1/2 minutes
Clearing 20-25 minutes
Fabriano EW
unsized for this first layer
I can print white highlights
unsized. I've done it in other prints, so I think it's
overexposure, not staining.
Your advice at least gives me a
better grounding of what I need to look for, etc and is so-o-o
very helpful!
Paul
----- Original Message ----- From:
"Joseph Smigiel" <jsmigiel@net- link.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday,
July 21, 2009 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum
attempt
Paul,
I would say your exposure is way too
long or you have severe staining
going on, or a combination of the
two. I'm basing this on the sort
of burnt mustard color of the
border and some parts of the image, and
the fact that even the bright
highlight on the nose has printed with
considerable density (or is
heavily stained). That area should print
paper white or very
close to it. Something (overexposure, staining)
has turned the
highlights into midtones. I suspect the negative will
print OK
though it seems a bit on the contrasty side to me.
What is your
pigment, concentration, exposure, etc.
Joe
On Jul 21,
2009, at 9:23 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:
Ha!!
I needed to laugh...believe me...
Here is a combination
of photo-negative-print that I was working on today. Trying to
dial in my negative, exposure, etc...you know the
drill.
What I would love is some feedback at this point, as I
feel I'm flying blind after trying several tricolor gums that
always turn out too light. I've made some adjustments to the
neg, etc and here is what I have right now.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/3744004251/sizes/o/
The
neg is Blue (printing Yellow)...please feel free to comment on
the density of the neg, the "look" of the Yellow print, or
anything else that catches your eye. Am I on the right
track or does somethng look terribly wrong here? I mean, I
really don't know what the yellow layer should look like
re: contrast, density...
Much thanks in advance for your
observations...now back to the
Scotch!
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday,
July 21, 2009 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: another 3 layer gum
attempt
This is what the Everclear is for.
On
Jul 21, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Marek Matusz wrote:
Paul,
The
suggested order would be
1. Procure the bottle of whatever
liquor
2. Start drinking
3. Expose test wedge
4. Keep
developing your gum test and keep drinking
5. When the bottle is
finished you should examine test prin
6. All of the sudden it
will all be clear, even if for a brief
moment
Enjoy
Marek
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009
17:27:42 -0600
> From: kerik@kerik.com
> Subject: RE: another 3
layer gum attempt
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>
> Just
don't drink the dichromate.
>
> I recommend
Lagavullin.
>
> Kerik
>
> > -----Original
Message-----
> > From: Paul Viapiano [mailto:viapiano@pacbell.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday,
July 21, 2009 3:37 PM
> > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> > Subject:
Re: another 3 layer gum attempt
> >
> > (light
bulb!! ding!)
> >
> > ok, ok...I have finally come
to the realization that gum will
> > drive you to
drink!
> >
> >
> > Paul
>
>
>
>
Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and
reviews organized in one place. Try it
now.
|