U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Dark reaction

Re: Dark reaction


  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: Dark reaction
  • From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
  • Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:01:18 -0500 (EST)
  • Comments: alt-photo-process mailing list
  • Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
  • In-reply-to: <20091029083034.A09D01575B2@karen.lavabit.com>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • References: <20091024210557.7432618F000B@spamit.usask.ca><BLU0-SMTP70C7B68C37FFDD51D66127DABB0@phx.gbl><Pine.NEB.4.64.0910272205520.2840@panix2.panix.com><20091029083034.A09D01575B2@karen.lavabit.com>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca


Many thanks for expatiation on "Dark reaction" -- and yes, it seems to be (largely) something I call something else... namely "fogging." Which strikes me as equally apt, in part because it doesn't happen whenever the print gets "in the dark," which the term sounds like. In fact, depending on heat & humidity it can simply not happen, or not noticeably. Plus, if you don't overdo, not a problem. (One of the great beauties of gum in any event is enormous flexibility in development.)

I have however come across warnings against fluorescents in "the literature," but wonder if the warners ever tried it. As I've probably mentioned, when I was teaching "non-silver," the classroom (a repurposed chem lab) was lit by several banks of fluorescent lights set in a fairly low ceiling.

But I gather that some folks really do coat by safelight -- and, if memory serves, some how-to sources advise that. (Is that possible? YIKES!)

cheers,

J.