Re: Another attempt to understand (long) (was Miracle size for gumnow tonal range
katharine,
for what it's worth in carbon printing different solutions are commonly
used to alter the contrast of the resulting prints. the stronger the
sensitizer, the less the contrast (and the denser the negative
highlights should be). with the carbon printing folks, i'd expect this
to be rather well tested.
i don't know how this translates to gum. but i can't see why it
shouldn't, both are dichromate + colloid.
regards
phritz
Katharine Thayer schrieb:
Since Marek hasn't answered the questions I posed in an attempt to
help me understand his argument, I've kept picking away at it in my
own head (one has a lot of time to think while cutting and carrying
piles of brush). I'm the kind of person who can't let something go
until I understand it, so I just keep puzzling away, with or without
help, until I can find a way to make it make sense to me.
Paring away and discarding the false premises that got in the way,
like the somewhat mistaken characterization of gum chemistry and the
assumption that a "typical" comparison of dichromate concentrations as
to tonal range should involve exposing different dichromate
concentrations the same amount (which would produce utterly
misleading and useless results) I think I've maybe discovered the
source of the difficulty, why we're not understanding each other.
My definition of the optimal exposure for a gum emulsion, explained on
my page on exposure, requires that the optimal exposure produces, and
retains over development, the maximum number of steps that emulsion is
capable of printing. If you look at the example I show on that page,
you'll see that after what I consider the optimal exposure, more
exposure doesn't produce more steps, it just moves the same number of
steps farther up the scale, requiring longer development to move the
scale back down where it belongs and open up the shadows; the strips
shown there were developed for three hours. So when I'm talking
about the "correct" exposure for a gum layer, I mean the exposure
beyond which more exposure will not get you anything in terms of
*either* DMax or the number of steps printed. In other words, at
correct exposure, you should get the maximum amount of hardening;
you're not going to get *more* of anything by adding more exposure or
more dichromate.
Re-reading Marek's post (quoted below) again carefully, especially
this statement: "now of course case one will show short scale,
because we have learned to underexpose gum with thin negatives" seems
to suggest that we are talking at cross purposes about exposure. Of
course if someone is underexposing their gum layer, then more exposure
would give them more retained steps, but I'm not assuming that anyone
is underexposing their gum layer. So we're talking past each other,
but by my definition of proper exposure, which assumes that the
exposure is right to start with and that you are already getting
optimal hardening of the gum layer, exposing more, or adding more
dichromate, isn't useful and will just add to the development time
without gaining anything in terms of tonal scale.
However, having said that, and having looked closely at my dichromate
demonstration which I did some 7-8 years ago before I came to my
present understanding of exposure, I do believe that the 1/5x
dichromate is underexposed. I exposed it 5x as long as the saturated
dichromate, but it seems pretty clear, looking at this from my present
understanding, that it's underexposed even at that. So I'm willing to
concede that this might not be an adequate demonstration of the
principle, and that increasing the exposure even more might well
result in more retained steps. Whether you could get it all the way
from four steps to eight by increasing the exposure I have no idea,
and why anyone would choose to print with such long exposures when a
longer tonal scale is available with short exposures, I couldn't
hazard a guess.
Not that I'm going to abandon on the spot the well-established
principle that more dichromate not only prints faster but also prints
with a longer tonal scale; that's been too well established by others
for me to abandon it without clear evidence to the contrary, and the
early guys who noticed and established that principle also understood
well the relationship between dichromate concentration and speed
(better than many people seem to understand it now) so I doubt they
would make the dumb mistake of exposing different dichromate
concentrations the same amount when determining the effect of
dichromate concentration on a third variable. But as always, I am
open to be persuaded by evidence, and if someone can show that
different dichromate concentrations, properly exposed, produce the
same tonal range, I will be happy to concede the point.
But even though this discussion started with Marek disagreeing with
the long-established principle, it doesn't look as if the comparison
he's proposing actually addresses that principle. What he's asking is
not "When two different dichromate concentrations are properly
exposed, do they produce the same tonal range?" but a different
question: "if you grossly overexpose two different dichromate
concentrations, to the point that a very long development time (8-10
hours) is needed for either, do you achieve the same tonal range, and
is it longer than the tonal range you would achieve with either, with
normal exposure (and here I mean what I consider proper exposure) and
a normal development time? That's a different question and the
answer to it would not address the generally established principle one
way or the other. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do
know that with saturated ammonium dichromate, overexposure with
extended development doesn't get you any more steps than normal
exposure and normal development.
Katharine
On Oct 11, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marek Matusz wrote:
Katharine,
I think I have to disagree with this statement. Here is my rationale.
Let's think about the chemistry of the gum printing. A photon of
light interacts with chromium (VI) reducing it to Cr(III), which
binds to gum hardening it. So the more light you use the more Cr(III)
you produce and more hardening of gum. The same goes with dichromate
concentration, the more dichromate you have the more cr(III) is
produced at the same amount of light.
In a typical experimnet that would be done to judge the effects of
dichromate concentration on gum printing one would compare two test
prints exposed for the same amount of time one with base dichromate
concentration, second with 2x concentration. But wait, the print with
2x concentration will produce 2x the Cr(III) amount and twice as much
hardening. SO the proper comparative example is to expose the 1x
chromium concentration for 2x the exposure. Now the development will
be long or very long..
SO actually 3 test strips should be compared.
case one 1x dichromate 1x exposure (your usual working scenario), it
will require shorter development
case two: 1x dichromate 2x exposure
case 3: 2x dichromate 1x exposure
I have done these and can not find the dfifference between cases 2
and 3, now of course case one will show shot scale, because we have
learned to underexpose gum with thin negatives
WOuld somebody show me test prints of cases 2 and 3 showing any
difference?
I actually ruined my set by leaving them a bit longer for development
and then forgetting about them for a day, so I need to make another
set for show and tell.
Marek
> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:33:57 -0700
> From: kthayer@pacifier.com
> Subject: Re: was Miracle size for gum now tonal range
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>
> Yes, phritz, this observation corresponds with mine and with the
> observations of observant gum printers through more than a hundred
> years; more dichromate= a longer tonal range (more steps), less
> dichromate= fewer steps and a more contrasty print. And I think
> you've got the right idea, at least part of it, for why that's so.
>
> See, you aren't at complete odds with gum at all, even though it
> feels that way at the moment; you do have a sense of how it works.
> Katharine
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2009, at 1:02 PM, phritz phantom wrote:
>
> > hi chris,
> > i did tests for tonal range about a year ago and again two months
> > ago. i printed step wedges with saturated and 5% ammonium
> > dichromate. since i don't have a proper step wedge (yet), i can't
> > say how many steps, but for me i get about twice the tonal range
> > with saturated than with 5%.
> > with the (uncurved) chart throb scales and 5% am-di there appr,2.5
> > lines between max. densitiy and white. while with the saturated
> > solution there are 5 or 6 lines between white and black
> > another thing i noticed is that the 5% solution does significantly
> > clear better than the saturated (on the cheap paper i use). i
> > wouldn't really call it stain, but the whites of the 5% sheet are
> > noticably more brilliant also i think the tonal range of the 5%
> > does break off more abrupt in the highlights. maybe it's just the
> > fine highlights that wash off quicker in the development, because
> > of the lesser light sensitivity of the 5% solution.
> >
> > phritz
> >
> >
> > Christina Z. Anderson schrieb:
> >
> >> Loris,
> >> Someone said in the literature recently that gum prints 2 stops
> >> (log .6). I was surprised at how low this was, as I always hedge
> >> my bets and say 4-6 stops, with 6 a stretch. Partly if you don't
> >> clear with pot metabi you can get a false read of maximum black
> >> because the brown stain of the dichromate can read a darker step
> >> when it is not really hardened anymore "goo" on top. So I always
> >> figured that the 2 stop person cleared and found that to be true.
> >> Or maybe was guessing it from the seat of his/her pants.
> >>
> >> But it's all kind of a moot point I suppose once you fit your
> >> negative curve to the exposure/dichromate you use.
> >>
> >> I use a 15% solution of am di (2 tsp to 100ml quick n' easy
> >> approximate).
> >>
> >> So Marek is figuring a 3 stop range, you a 4-5 stop range....
> >>
> >> You say that with weaker di and greater exposure you are getting a
> >> longer tonal range--do you have a picture on the web of that
> >> comparison somewhere?
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> __________________
> >>
> >> Christina Z. Anderson
> >> http://christinaZanderson.com/
> >> __________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
Sign up now.
|