[alt-photo] Re: Gum over cyanotype question

[Diana Bloomfield]

Yes, I understand; thanks, Loris.  I guess I'm not all that into sharpness and clarity, for the most part.  But for sharpness, I prefer pt/pd anyway-- or, you know-- cranking out one of those really sharp digital prints. :)  I use too many plastic lens (or no lens) cameras, so I suspect I've gotten too used to non tack-sharp prints.  I rather like the sort of ambiguity that softness can sometimes provide (sorta like life). ;)

Diana
On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Loris Medici wrote:

> Cyanotype is extremely sharp, in the beginning I was working with
> imagesetter negatives (3600dpi / 225 lpi - not the best possible, but
> pretty high res.) and the emulsion was able to resolve each individual
> dots!!! So much that I started to expose emulsion up (with a slight
> sharpness penalty) in order to inhibit the strange tonal shifts /
> blotchiness I was getting between the parts of the image where the
> dots were clearly resolved and not... Gum can be pretty sharp too, but
> not to the extent of cyanotype et. al. because it a much thicker and
> movable/mallable (I'm not sure it's the correct description but I
> couldn't find a better one...) emulsion.
> 
> Regards,
> Loris.
>