From unglobetrotteur at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 21:55:07 2013 From: unglobetrotteur at hotmail.com (Un Globe Trotteur) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:55:07 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Color laser Printer In-Reply-To: <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: has anybody tried to create digital negatives with a color laser printer instead of an inkjet. I was thinking about trying but did not want to waste my money buying color laser paper if someone else already tried. thanks. Pierre-Olivier http://www.PierreOlivierTavernier.com From christnze at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 22:05:01 2013 From: christnze at gmail.com (Christian Nze) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:05:01 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Color laser Printer In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: for sure you can do some but it won't have the good definition as inkjet. few laser have a 1200dpi. All these will depend on the process you use. It may be interesting to use laser for gum printing as it will make the process easier. but for all the ther you will get a screen mark on the print. 2013/12/5 Un Globe Trotteur > has anybody tried to create digital negatives with a color laser printer > instead of an inkjet. > I was thinking about trying but did not want to waste my money buying > color laser paper if someone else already tried. > thanks. > Pierre-Olivier > http://www.PierreOlivierTavernier.com > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From unglobetrotteur at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 02:19:15 2013 From: unglobetrotteur at hotmail.com (Un Globe Trotteur) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:19:15 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Color laser Printer In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, I do silver. This is what the specs are: Print Resolution: Up to 600 x 600 dpi Print Technology Resolution: HP ImageREt 2400 If anybody else has input, that would be great...Thanks.. PO -----Original Message----- From: Christian Nze Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:05 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Color laser Printer for sure you can do some but it won't have the good definition as inkjet. few laser have a 1200dpi. All these will depend on the process you use. It may be interesting to use laser for gum printing as it will make the process easier. but for all the ther you will get a screen mark on the print. 2013/12/5 Un Globe Trotteur > has anybody tried to create digital negatives with a color laser printer > instead of an inkjet. > I was thinking about trying but did not want to waste my money buying > color laser paper if someone else already tried. > thanks. > Pierre-Olivier > http://www.PierreOlivierTavernier.com > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca Fri Dec 6 23:21:45 2013 From: pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca (Peter Friedrichsen) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:21:45 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? Peter Friedrichsen From mikes1mom at comcast.net Fri Dec 6 23:24:30 2013 From: mikes1mom at comcast.net (Catherine Costolo) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:24:30 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Clearing of Revere paper Message-ID: <66BAF1CD-2336-4463-861F-2318EDA55AFD@comcast.net> Hey! I am using Revere paper and I wondered what might be the best clearing agents to use. I have been using an acid bath with Di-EDTA and citric acid (first two baths) and then an acid bath of Tetra EDTA and sodium sulfite but it has not seemed very effective. I thought about buying some muriatic acid or Lime Away tomorrow. Thanks! Catherine Catherine Costolo Independent Beauty Consultant with Mary Kay Cosmetics(404) 252 -2181 (404)291-2181 (cell) Visit my website 24/7 www.marykay.com/ccostolo Happiness is like jam.....you can't spread it around without getting a little on yourself. From fotocmb at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 00:59:35 2013 From: fotocmb at gmail.com (Charles Berger) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:59:35 -0800 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Stochastic screens as fine as 11 microns have been used (successfully) for tricolor carbon. The problem with stochastic screens are the "artifacts" often created if less than perfect contact (a vacuum frame is necessary) is achieved. Charles On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Peter Friedrichsen < pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca> wrote: > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half > tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The > smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box > generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a > more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the > minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From christnze at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 01:21:05 2013 From: christnze at gmail.com (Christian Nze) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 02:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Clearing of Revere paper In-Reply-To: <66BAF1CD-2336-4463-861F-2318EDA55AFD@comcast.net> References: <66BAF1CD-2336-4463-861F-2318EDA55AFD@comcast.net> Message-ID: I used also , and I find that It get almost cleared after a hot developper bath( 50?C) So whe I use cold dev ( ambient temp) I do an hot first clearing bath with citric acid and thant's perfect. I think warmer will work better than more acid . as I give a try to HCL with no better succes than Warmer 2013/12/7 Catherine Costolo > Hey! I am using Revere paper and I wondered what might be the best > clearing agents to use. > I have been using an acid bath with Di-EDTA and citric acid (first two > baths) and then an acid bath of Tetra EDTA and sodium sulfite but it has > not seemed very effective. > I thought about buying some muriatic acid or Lime Away tomorrow. > Thanks! > Catherine > > Catherine Costolo > Independent Beauty Consultant with Mary Kay Cosmetics(404) 252 -2181 > (404)291-2181 (cell) > Visit my website 24/7 www.marykay.com/ccostolo > Happiness is like jam.....you can't spread it around without getting a > little on yourself. > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 01:23:16 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 20:23:16 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Clearing of Revere paper In-Reply-To: <66BAF1CD-2336-4463-861F-2318EDA55AFD@comcast.net> References: <66BAF1CD-2336-4463-861F-2318EDA55AFD@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5C94CF06-5379-4F0B-93B7-DAFFAB3C69F5@gmail.com> Catherine, I use citric acid which works fine for me, with Revere. Diana On Dec 6, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Catherine Costolo wrote: > Hey! I am using Revere paper and I wondered what might be the best clearing agents to use. > I have been using an acid bath with Di-EDTA and citric acid (first two baths) and then an acid bath of Tetra EDTA and sodium sulfite but it has not seemed very effective. > I thought about buying some muriatic acid or Lime Away tomorrow. > Thanks! > Catherine > > Catherine Costolo > Independent Beauty Consultant with Mary Kay Cosmetics(404) 252 -2181 > (404)291-2181 (cell) > Visit my website 24/7 www.marykay.com/ccostolo > Happiness is like jam.....you can't spread it around without getting a little on yourself. > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From gneissgirl at cableone.net Sat Dec 7 03:56:53 2013 From: gneissgirl at cableone.net (Mary Donato) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 20:56:53 -0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A29C85.1050806@spamcop.net> I played around with the color halftone filter in photoshop cs4 a while back, just for fun, not to solve any problem. I don't remember the details but I think I just used the default settings that came up in cs4 in terms of screen angles, etc. I think the radius was 8 pixels. I posted 5 images of my experiments on flickr. Here's a link to one of them (look at adjacent images for more): http://www.flickr.com/photos/gneissgirl/5614283695/in/photostream/ I applied the halftone filter to a color image, then split the channels and printed 3 layers: cyan, red, and yellow (rooster image). I also applied the halftone filter to a b/w image and printed "false color" in 3 layers (gourd image). Details of what I did are in the comments, but I'm happy to try to elaborate -- if I can remember - it was >2years ago! I was surprised at the detail that could be obtained. But 8 pixels is pretty big, and the idea here was to have the dots be part of the design, as a graphic element, rather than a way to achieve tonal gradation. Hope this helps and isn't too far afield from what you're asking, Peter. md /~~~~~~~~ www.alternative-ego.com/ On 12/6/13 4:21 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half > tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The > smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box > generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as > a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the > minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 08:20:37 2013 From: johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com (John Brewer) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 08:20:37 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think Steven Livik may have done, it's in his manual IIRC. John Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:21 pm, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From remko at degraaff.biz Sat Dec 7 09:35:51 2013 From: remko at degraaff.biz (remko) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 10:35:51 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001701cef32f$b83497b0$289dc710$@degraaff.biz> What is your goal Peter? I use both technics, gumprinting and polymer photo gravure and don't see the advantage. I actually think the gum print will be more grainy. remko -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] Namens John Brewer Verzonden: zaterdag 7 december 2013 9:21 Aan: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Onderwerp: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum I think Steven Livik may have done, it's in his manual IIRC. John Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:21 pm, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From workshops at polychrome.nl Sat Dec 7 10:37:39 2013 From: workshops at polychrome.nl (Kees Brandenburg) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:37:39 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Peter, As a first remark I think that an inkjet dither is in it's nature also 'stochastic'. Maybe that's one of the reasons why these negatives print so well with long (and short) scale processes. Even highlights in carbon which are a known difficulty with continuous tone negatives. Charles explained this before. I have also been experimenting with a mac application called Icefields by isisimaging.com. This program can convert image files to a FM (frequency modulated) stochastic file. As I did not find a film output service anywhere near where I live I tried printing these files with my inkjet printer(s) with quadtonerip. There I noticed some interference between dots and the screened image file and I stopped testing. Maybe I should experiment more with the output settings. Still looking for someone that can output these fileswith on film. kees On 7 dec. 2013, at 00:21, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen From bobkiss at caribsurf.com Sat Dec 7 13:00:59 2013 From: bobkiss at caribsurf.com (bobkiss @caribsurf.com) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 09:00:59 -0400 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Clearing of Revere paper Message-ID: DEAR DIANE, As I am a "Revere virgin" and will be trying it soon, please let me know if you think the following, which works very well with COT 320, will work for the Revere. After developing in warm (100F) Pot Ox developer the first clearing bath is a room temp 2% soln of Oxalic Acid for 5 mins with agit. The next two clearing baths are EDTA plus Sodium Sulfite also 5 mins each with agit. Please remember that, even with airconditioning, room temp here is between 75 and 78 F. Looking forward to trying out this beautiful paper! HOLIDAY CHEERS! BOB On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > Catherine, > > I use citric acid which works fine for me, with Revere. > > Diana > > On Dec 6, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Catherine Costolo wrote: > > > Hey! I am using Revere paper and I wondered what might be the best > clearing agents to use. > > I have been using an acid bath with Di-EDTA and citric acid (first two > baths) and then an acid bath of Tetra EDTA and sodium sulfite but it has > not seemed very effective. > > I thought about buying some muriatic acid or Lime Away tomorrow. > > Thanks! > > Catherine > > > > Catherine Costolo > > Independent Beauty Consultant with Mary Kay Cosmetics(404) 252 -2181 > > (404)291-2181 (cell) > > Visit my website 24/7 www.marykay.com/ccostolo > > Happiness is like jam.....you can't spread it around without getting a > little on yourself. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 14:13:13 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 09:13:13 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Clearing of Revere paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <187FC560-5B86-4365-B05E-351BA1B977EB@gmail.com> Hey Bob, I use Potassium Ox developer as well. And I clear that paper with only citric acid baths. But now I'm feeling pretty lazy about that, given what you list here. But I can't see doing all this other clearing would hurt, though the citric acid seems to work fine for this paper (which it never did for me, for the COT320). Do let us know how you like the paper. It really is beautiful. Between 75 and 75 WITH air conditioning? I think I might die. But you should be fine. :) -Diana On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:00 AM, bobkiss @caribsurf.com wrote: > DEAR DIANE, > As I am a "Revere virgin" and will be trying it soon, please let me > know if you think the following, which works very well with COT 320, will > work for the Revere. > After developing in warm (100F) Pot Ox developer the first clearing > bath is a room temp 2% soln of Oxalic Acid for 5 mins with agit. The next > two clearing baths are EDTA plus Sodium Sulfite also 5 mins each with > agit. Please remember that, even with airconditioning, room temp here is > between 75 and 78 F. > Looking forward to trying out this beautiful paper! > HOLIDAY CHEERS! > BOB > > From christinazanderson at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 16:25:22 2013 From: christinazanderson at gmail.com (Christina Anderson) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 09:25:22 -0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <790097B8-5293-469B-9D15-EB62A871E3A2@gmail.com> Dear Peter, I have done this for the reason of trying to approximate an autochrome. Gum surprisingly prints great detail so if you are trying to grain up a print, it works. I have also done gum printing with a bitmap negative with the bitmap quite coarse, and also with adding noise to the channels individually. What i notice is that the contrast does go down and I think you therefore could get by without curving the gum negative to be lower contrast. It produces a very soft, very minute grainy look. It was something I thought intriguing enough to explore but never got back to it. What I did was print the image regularly and then also with grain so I could see the comparison side by side. I didn't see an advantage to it technique-wise, only the way it looked--minute grain. But I find that minute grain is also part of casein's charm. It's not the grain you get when a gum print goes awry, but much smaller and deliberate. It also made me realize that a regular bitmap negative is just fine for gum whereas it might not be good for other one-step processes like platinum or VDB. Chris Christina Z. Anderson http://christinaZanderson.com/ On Dec 6, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From mjkoskin at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 19:49:11 2013 From: mjkoskin at gmail.com (Matti Koskinen) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 21:49:11 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: <790097B8-5293-469B-9D15-EB62A871E3A2@gmail.com> References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> <790097B8-5293-469B-9D15-EB62A871E3A2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A37BB7.9060001@gmail.com> On Dec 6, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: >> Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. >> >> Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? >> >> Peter Friedrichsen Hi Peter, I've done casein prints, haven't made gum prints in years, printing with laser printer the negs. They are stochastic, also more common name I think, is error diffusion, because the technique is alike. Now I have a new (used) Canon LBP5360 colour laser, and the monochrome prints are very good (I calibrated only with profile prism). I haven't tried casein, but intaglios by heat transfer the toner on zinc plate. Really difficult to avoid bubbles, where the toner doesn't adhere correctly, but when it does, someone might call the prints photogravures. If you have a good laser printer, worth trying. best -m From sanking at clemson.edu Sat Dec 7 20:05:42 2013 From: sanking at clemson.edu (Sandy King) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:05:42 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Kees, If you look at an inkjet negative with a magnifying glass the pattern of ink dots does look like a random stochastic pattern. I print digital negatives for monochrome carbon transfer printing with an Epson 7800 with QTR and a profile that I developed especially for my carbon tissue and sensitizing procedures. My negatives have a fairly high density range, about log 2.35, and with them it is definitely possible to print a continuous tone step wedge with no mechanical failure in the highlights. Sandy On Dec 7, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Kees Brandenburg wrote: > Hi Peter, > > As a first remark I think that an inkjet dither is in it's nature also 'stochastic'. Maybe that's one of the reasons why these negatives print so well with long (and short) scale processes. Even highlights in carbon which are a known difficulty with continuous tone negatives. Charles explained this before. > > I have also been experimenting with a mac application called Icefields by isisimaging.com. This program can convert image files to a FM (frequency modulated) stochastic file. As I did not find a film output service anywhere near where I live I tried printing these files with my inkjet printer(s) with quadtonerip. There I noticed some interference between dots and the screened image file and I stopped testing. Maybe I should experiment more with the output settings. Still looking for someone that can output these fileswith on film. > > kees > > > > On 7 dec. 2013, at 00:21, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > >> Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. >> >> Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? >> >> Peter Friedrichsen > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From noisy at rogers.com Sat Dec 7 22:11:10 2013 From: noisy at rogers.com (Ian Hooper) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:11:10 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A39CFE.3090401@rogers.com> I've tried stochastic screened negs output on an imagesetter with varied results. Things to consider: too small of a dot will not 'hold' in the highlights; negative and paper have to be very tightly sandwiched; the more 'point source' the light, the better; the more dense the ink (in terms of uv blocking) the better. Also, bear in mind that most FM screens are geared towards offset printing, which is a very different animal than gum. There is a lot more to high-end FM screening than a simple dither algorithm; hybrid AM/FM screens with complex error diffusion are required to hold the highlights and avoid ugly "wormies" (a mottled/stippled artifact). The JPD (just-printable dot) has to be determined by trial and error; the paper surface, sizing, and gum qualities all be significant variables. That all being said, it can work very well, but is definitely a quite a few steps away from "analog gum". YMMV :) -Ian On 06/12/2013 6:21 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half > tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The > smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box > generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as > a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the > minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From samwang864 at gmail.com Sun Dec 8 17:04:11 2013 From: samwang864 at gmail.com (sam wang) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 12:04:11 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <71CB9E3A-C6A8-440B-B56F-D8B5EFDF9B33@gmail.com> Hi Peter, With gum, since the negatives' DMax requirements are so low, I've found that almost any inkjet printer would work. The first digital negatives that I used for tricolor gum were made on a very early black and white inkjet printer. However, service bureau stochastic negatives can print much more predictably, and a lot more forgiving in exposure and development because of the hard dots. But I gave up trying to find a service bureau that can do so and not too expensive. To create stochastic patterns with Photoshop is not hard, just select diffusion dither in the bitmap options. You'd get interference patterns in the exact mid-tones in some cases. For inkjet there really is no need for it anymore. But after tearing my hair out from inkjet printer problems, I tried using laser printers (as answer to another thread) - it worked OK, if you don't mind fairly bold and obvious dot patters. I find that more attractive than the usual halftones you get with laser printers. I've always wanted to make some really graphic gum prints by lowering the lpi, and use lines instead of elliptical dots, but never got around to. As to minimum dot size, I don't have answer as to inkjet, but on service bureau negs using dithered patterns from Photoshop, I could only get 635 dpi predictably. That's limitation by the printer, not gum. Hope this helps. Sam Wang On Dec 6, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote: > Has anyone applied a stochastic screen to gum printing? This is a half tone technique that uses dot frequency to emulate color/greyscale. The smaller the dot size, the more photographic the rendition. My UV box generates diffuse UV light so I think that may not be as effective as a more point sourced arc type UV lamp. > > Has anyone done anything like this before? I was wondering what the minimum dot size that could be realized from a contact negative? > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca Mon Dec 9 00:35:17 2013 From: pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca (Peter Friedrichsen) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:35:17 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum In-Reply-To: <52A39CFE.3090401@rogers.com> References: <32071958.1383941092557.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <59E8348B-D737-44B2-84F4-13CE985A756D@uga.edu> <0DF295CF-C7E5-49FA-BEDF-2E8EBEA5C1EA@gmail.com> <52A39CFE.3090401@rogers.com> Message-ID: I am intrigued by all the experiments that many here have performed. It seems that attempting to apply a dither to the negative may give mixed results perhaps because of competition with the printers own diffusion algorithms. A laser printer only using its own internal diffusion pattern seems may be the best option but mine laserjet is an amplitude modulated algorithm and I don't like the diagonal pattern. I don't think using native inkjet's diffusion pattern on the more advanced printers would cut it because most of these are adding lighter greys for smoother tones. I have concerns that these lighter dots once inverted are not going to harden the gum sufficiently in a top down exposure process as gum printing is. My bet would be on using a laser printer having an FM screening pattern as was mentioned, but maximum size is limited in this technology. If I find one to test, Ill pass on the results. The problem is I have about 50 years worth of thinks I would like to try; ain't going to happen! Thanks for all of the excellent advice! Peter Friedrichsen From fdfragomeni at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 04:39:14 2013 From: fdfragomeni at gmail.com (Francesco Fragomeni) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:39:14 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? Message-ID: Hi All, Just a quick question here. Will platinum, palladium, and the ferric oxalate degrade if they are mixed into coating solutions and then stored? I'm thinking about an experiment in which a larger than usual amount of a coating solution will be mixed and will need to be stored but I don't want to waste time and money on this if the mixed solutions wont last. Basically paper will be floated on the solutions which is why larger amounts need to be mixed and then stored in between printing sessions. Any insight? Will there be any issues with mixed solutions being stored? From emanphoto at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 08:54:42 2013 From: emanphoto at gmail.com (Eric Nelson) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:54:42 +0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The metals should last indefinitely but the FO goes off after 6 months or so. I remember this from when I used to buy premixed FO many years ago e On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Francesco Fragomeni wrote: > Hi All, > > Just a quick question here. Will platinum, palladium, and the ferric > oxalate degrade if they are mixed into coating solutions and then stored? > I'm thinking about an experiment in which a larger than usual amount of a > coating solution will be mixed and will need to be stored but I don't want > to waste time and money on this if the mixed solutions wont last. Basically > paper will be floated on the solutions which is why larger amounts need to > be mixed and then stored in between printing sessions. > > Any insight? Will there be any issues with mixed solutions being stored? > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From payral at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 10:46:11 2013 From: payral at gmail.com (Philippe Ayral) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:46:11 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Question was about coating solution when *they are mixed into coating solutions and then stored* [image: Avatar] *Philippe Ayral** Photographie* 52, rue de Vallard - 74240 Gaillard T?l: 04 50 39 79 81 www.payral.fr Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours 2013/12/9 Eric Nelson > The metals should last indefinitely but the FO goes off after 6 months or > so. I remember this from when I used to buy premixed FO many years ago > e > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Francesco Fragomeni > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Just a quick question here. Will platinum, palladium, and the ferric > > oxalate degrade if they are mixed into coating solutions and then stored? > > I'm thinking about an experiment in which a larger than usual amount of a > > coating solution will be mixed and will need to be stored but I don't > want > > to waste time and money on this if the mixed solutions wont last. > Basically > > paper will be floated on the solutions which is why larger amounts need > to > > be mixed and then stored in between printing sessions. > > > > Any insight? Will there be any issues with mixed solutions being stored? > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From fdfragomeni at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 13:19:23 2013 From: fdfragomeni at gmail.com (Francesco Fragomeni) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 08:19:23 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes to clarify, I don't mean the longevity of the individual parts independent of one another. I mean the longevity of an actual coating solution once mixed i.e the Platinum, palladium, and ferric oxalate 1 and 2 mixed together and ready for the paper. On Dec 9, 2013 5:46 AM, "Philippe Ayral" wrote: > Question was about coating solution when *they are mixed into coating > solutions and then stored* > > > [image: Avatar] > *Philippe Ayral** Photographie* > 52, rue de Vallard - 74240 Gaillard > T?l: 04 50 39 79 81 > www.payral.fr > Designed with WiseStamp - > < > http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding%3Fu%3D61c63ff3188fa5ae%26v%3D3.13.7%26t%3D1373729033240%26promo%3D10%26dest%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com%252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10 > >Get > yours< > http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding%3Fu%3D61c63ff3188fa5ae%26v%3D3.13.7%26t%3D1373729033240%26promo%3D10%26dest%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com%252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10 > > > > > > 2013/12/9 Eric Nelson > > > The metals should last indefinitely but the FO goes off after 6 months or > > so. I remember this from when I used to buy premixed FO many years ago > > e > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Francesco Fragomeni > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Just a quick question here. Will platinum, palladium, and the ferric > > > oxalate degrade if they are mixed into coating solutions and then > stored? > > > I'm thinking about an experiment in which a larger than usual amount > of a > > > coating solution will be mixed and will need to be stored but I don't > > want > > > to waste time and money on this if the mixed solutions wont last. > > Basically > > > paper will be floated on the solutions which is why larger amounts need > > to > > > be mixed and then stored in between printing sessions. > > > > > > Any insight? Will there be any issues with mixed solutions being > stored? > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From ejnphoto at sbcglobal.net Mon Dec 9 20:56:27 2013 From: ejnphoto at sbcglobal.net (EJ Photo) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:56:27 -0600 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0965941B289A43E6BA037E1708AE45B7@Eric64> Francesco, I would say to do this for your self. Mix an amount of those solutions you currently use; maybe 4 times a normal print. Keep it for a week and then make some prints and test it against the color and speed of the same from freshly combined chemicals. In my experience, the combined mix of FO and PT/PD mix printed faster and warmer but your results may be different. Since I don't know where you get any of your chemistry nor at what strength you use it, it is impossible to say for sure. The FO is the part that can go bad, create a fog. Remember it is a new solution with a new equilibrium, so you must do it your self. I did not run test for storage longer than a few days - 4 to 5. Eric Neilsen Eric Neilsen Photography 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9 Dallas, TX 75226 www.ericneilsenphotography.com skype me with ejprinter Let's Talk Photography -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Francesco Fragomeni Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:19 AM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? Yes to clarify, I don't mean the longevity of the individual parts independent of one another. I mean the longevity of an actual coating solution once mixed i.e the Platinum, palladium, and ferric oxalate 1 and 2 mixed together and ready for the paper. On Dec 9, 2013 5:46 AM, "Philippe Ayral" wrote: > Question was about coating solution when *they are mixed into coating > solutions and then stored* > > > [image: Avatar] > *Philippe Ayral** Photographie* > 52, rue de Vallard - 74240 Gaillard > T?l: 04 50 39 79 81 > www.payral.fr > Designed with WiseStamp - > < > http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding %3Fu%3D61c63ff3188fa5ae%26v%3D3.13.7%26t%3D1373729033240%26promo%3D10%26dest %3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com%252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253 Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10 > >Get > yours< > http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding %3Fu%3D61c63ff3188fa5ae%26v%3D3.13.7%26t%3D1373729033240%26promo%3D10%26dest %3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com%252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253 Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10 > > > > > > 2013/12/9 Eric Nelson > > > The metals should last indefinitely but the FO goes off after 6 months or > > so. I remember this from when I used to buy premixed FO many years ago > > e > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Francesco Fragomeni > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Just a quick question here. Will platinum, palladium, and the ferric > > > oxalate degrade if they are mixed into coating solutions and then > stored? > > > I'm thinking about an experiment in which a larger than usual amount > of a > > > coating solution will be mixed and will need to be stored but I don't > > want > > > to waste time and money on this if the mixed solutions wont last. > > Basically > > > paper will be floated on the solutions which is why larger amounts need > > to > > > be mixed and then stored in between printing sessions. > > > > > > Any insight? Will there be any issues with mixed solutions being > stored? > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca Tue Dec 10 00:00:03 2013 From: pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca (Peter Friedrichsen) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:00:03 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] buffer free paper Message-ID: Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for platinum and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step to remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the Toronto area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for time. Regards, Peter Friedrichsen From Kathleen.Mullen at wisconsinhistory.org Tue Dec 10 03:41:33 2013 From: Kathleen.Mullen at wisconsinhistory.org (Mullen, Kathleen D - WHS) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:41:33 -0600 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8006BCC4FB3A2D4D9504402AD439412B06B15AA11A@MEWMAD0P1706.accounts.wistate.us> I've had the most success for cyanotype with Crane's platinotype, which I can get at my local "Artist's and Craftsmen" art supply store. I ran fairly extensive testing with a friend on every type of paper we could get our hands on, and we were both the most pleased with the Crane's. Haven't done platinotype so I can't comment. Katie ________________________________________ From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Peter Friedrichsen [pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 6:00 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] buffer free paper Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for platinum and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step to remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the Toronto area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for time. Regards, Peter Friedrichsen _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From e.camerling at tiscali.nl Tue Dec 10 09:38:20 2013 From: e.camerling at tiscali.nl (Erich Camerling) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:38:20 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] 365 nm. UV-Densitometer. part 6 of 7 Message-ID: <52A6E10C.2060209@tiscali.nl> The DVM. For reading the optical density ( D ) you can use a digital volt meter ( DVM ) One of the most luxury DVM's is the Lascar DPM 300 , a 4.5 digit single rail backlit voltmeter. At www.rs-online.nl , search for nr 260--038 you can see the data. Price : EUR 172.= incl VAT !! For me much too expensive ! So I used a much cheaper DVM ( data : input R = 100 M ohm accuracy = 0.1% ? 1 digit range = 2000 counts resolution = 0.1 mV ) power supply = 9 -12 V that was in my "old stuff" box. Now I can measure from D = 0.10 to 3.50 But I could lent a Voltcraft VC 175 DMM (autorange) with 4000 counts and with that meter I could measure from D = 0.100 to 3.500. Price : EUR 33.= incl.VAT look at www.conrad.nl and search nr: 124457-89. for an example.Because of its size is will be very difficult to build in this meter but you can use it for a lot of other measurements when you connect the meter with a cord to the densitometer. For the accuracy you don't need the VC 175 because the delta D = ? 0.02 for the densitometer. To be continued this week From bobkiss at caribsurf.com Tue Dec 10 10:30:31 2013 From: bobkiss at caribsurf.com (bobkiss @caribsurf.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Kathlene that Cranes Platinotype is a pretty good versatile paper for cyano and pt/pd printing. I adore COT 320 for pt/pd printing and, at Diana Bloomfield's recommendation, will soon be trying Revere which comes highly recommended. HOLIDAY CHEERS! BOB On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Peter Friedrichsen < pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca> wrote: > Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for platinum > and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step to > remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the Toronto > area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for time. > > Regards, > > Peter Friedrichsen > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From mail at loris.medici.name Tue Dec 10 12:08:26 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:08:26 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Peter, If a thin paper (70-80 gsm, but very strong up to 11x14" image size...) won't put you off, Masa paper works *very nice* with *all* the iron (new and trad. cyanotype, pt/pd...) and iron-silver (argyrotype, vandyke...) processes. It's a very bright paper with a very smooth surface, and a single 21x31" sheet cost only around USD 1.30-1.35. (I remember it was 0.70/sheet once, I guess the price went up with increasing demand...) Regards, Loris. 2013/12/10 Peter Friedrichsen > Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for platinum > and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step to > remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the Toronto > area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for time. > From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 14:17:03 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:17:03 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <637D3998-479B-435E-861C-AF0186FF6A49@gmail.com> Yes-- I can't say enough good things about the Revere. I've also used Masa, which works well for gum and cyanotype. I've never used it for pt/pd. I'll try it. Like Loris said, it is very smooth (and very thin), inexpensive, and worked fine. The only negative thing I can say about Masa is the relative thinness, and I felt the colors in my gum prints were actually a little too vivid and too bright for me. That might be a positive for some, but because of the bright white base, I guess, everything was just too vivid-- too much. Not really a negative, I guess, but it was for me. :) Diana On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Loris Medici wrote: > Peter, > > If a thin paper (70-80 gsm, but very strong up to 11x14" image size...) > won't put you off, Masa paper works *very nice* with *all* the iron (new > and trad. cyanotype, pt/pd...) and iron-silver (argyrotype, vandyke...) > processes. It's a very bright paper with a very smooth surface, and a > single 21x31" sheet cost only around USD 1.30-1.35. (I remember it was > 0.70/sheet once, I guess the price went up with increasing demand...) > > Regards, > Loris. > > > > 2013/12/10 Peter Friedrichsen > >> Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for platinum >> and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step to >> remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the Toronto >> area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for time. >> > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From mail at loris.medici.name Tue Dec 10 14:19:49 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:19:49 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: <637D3998-479B-435E-861C-AF0186FF6A49@gmail.com> References: <637D3998-479B-435E-861C-AF0186FF6A49@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Diana, One good thing about Masa's thinness is the fact that it clears incredibly fast and well. Regards, Loris. 2013/12/10 Diana Bloomfield > Yes-- I can't say enough good things about the Revere. I've also used > Masa, which works well for gum and cyanotype. I've never used it for > pt/pd. I'll try it. Like Loris said, it is very smooth (and very thin), > inexpensive, and worked fine. The only negative thing I can say about Masa > is the relative thinness, and I felt the colors in my gum prints were > actually a little too vivid and too bright for me. That might be a > positive for some, but because of the bright white base, I guess, > everything was just too vivid-- too much. Not really a negative, I guess, > but it was for me. :) > > Diana > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Loris Medici wrote: > > > Peter, > > > > If a thin paper (70-80 gsm, but very strong up to 11x14" image size...) > > won't put you off, Masa paper works *very nice* with *all* the iron (new > > and trad. cyanotype, pt/pd...) and iron-silver (argyrotype, vandyke...) > > processes. It's a very bright paper with a very smooth surface, and a > > single 21x31" sheet cost only around USD 1.30-1.35. (I remember it was > > 0.70/sheet once, I guess the price went up with increasing demand...) > > > > Regards, > > Loris. > > > > > > > > 2013/12/10 Peter Friedrichsen > > > >> Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for > platinum > >> and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step to > >> remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the > Toronto > >> area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for time. > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From mail at loris.medici.name Tue Dec 10 14:23:00 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:23:00 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: <637D3998-479B-435E-861C-AF0186FF6A49@gmail.com> Message-ID: Plus it gave me the best dmax I've got ever (with pt/pd and argyrotype). Makes images on COT320 look weak. (Which aren't at all actually, I happen to like that paper very much too...) Regards, Loris. 2013/12/10 Loris Medici > Hi Diana, > > One good thing about Masa's thinness is the fact that it clears incredibly > fast and well. > > Regards, > Loris. > > > > 2013/12/10 Diana Bloomfield > >> Yes-- I can't say enough good things about the Revere. I've also used >> Masa, which works well for gum and cyanotype. I've never used it for >> pt/pd. I'll try it. Like Loris said, it is very smooth (and very thin), >> inexpensive, and worked fine. The only negative thing I can say about Masa >> is the relative thinness, and I felt the colors in my gum prints were >> actually a little too vivid and too bright for me. That might be a >> positive for some, but because of the bright white base, I guess, >> everything was just too vivid-- too much. Not really a negative, I guess, >> but it was for me. :) >> >> Diana >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Loris Medici wrote: >> >> > Peter, >> > >> > If a thin paper (70-80 gsm, but very strong up to 11x14" image size...) >> > won't put you off, Masa paper works *very nice* with *all* the iron (new >> > and trad. cyanotype, pt/pd...) and iron-silver (argyrotype, vandyke...) >> > processes. It's a very bright paper with a very smooth surface, and a >> > single 21x31" sheet cost only around USD 1.30-1.35. (I remember it was >> > 0.70/sheet once, I guess the price went up with increasing demand...) >> > >> > Regards, >> > Loris. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2013/12/10 Peter Friedrichsen >> > >> >> Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for >> platinum >> >> and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step to >> >> remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the >> Toronto >> >> area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for time. >> > From darkroommanager at cornell.edu Tue Dec 10 14:30:11 2013 From: darkroommanager at cornell.edu (Darkrooms, Department of Art) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:30:11 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Diana, Are you sizing the Masa for gum prints? Thanks, Jennifer M. Gioffre Teaching Support Specialist Architecture Art and Planning Cornell University 120 Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 o: 607-255-4207 f: 607-255-3462 Jmg393 at cornell.edu Darkroommanager at cornell.edu AAPstore at cornell.edu On 12/10/13 9:19 AM, "Loris Medici" wrote: >Hi Diana, > >One good thing about Masa's thinness is the fact that it clears incredibly >fast and well. > >Regards, >Loris. > > > >2013/12/10 Diana Bloomfield > >> Yes-- I can't say enough good things about the Revere. I've also used >> Masa, which works well for gum and cyanotype. I've never used it for >> pt/pd. I'll try it. Like Loris said, it is very smooth (and very >>thin), >> inexpensive, and worked fine. The only negative thing I can say about >>Masa >> is the relative thinness, and I felt the colors in my gum prints were >> actually a little too vivid and too bright for me. That might be a >> positive for some, but because of the bright white base, I guess, >> everything was just too vivid-- too much. Not really a negative, I >>guess, >> but it was for me. :) >> >> Diana >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:08 AM, Loris Medici wrote: >> >> > Peter, >> > >> > If a thin paper (70-80 gsm, but very strong up to 11x14" image >>size...) >> > won't put you off, Masa paper works *very nice* with *all* the iron >>(new >> > and trad. cyanotype, pt/pd...) and iron-silver (argyrotype, >>vandyke...) >> > processes. It's a very bright paper with a very smooth surface, and a >> > single 21x31" sheet cost only around USD 1.30-1.35. (I remember it was >> > 0.70/sheet once, I guess the price went up with increasing demand...) >> > >> > Regards, >> > Loris. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2013/12/10 Peter Friedrichsen >> > >> >> Just wondering if anyone has suggestions on unbuffered paper for >> platinum >> >> and cyanotype processes. I do not want to do the acidification step >>to >> >> remove buffers at this point. Any suggestions? If you live in the >> Toronto >> >> area and know who stocks it even better as I am a bit pressed for >>time. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org >> >_______________________________________________ >Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 14:43:14 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:43:14 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0685BA69-C680-4E52-A312-41B9F447DBC7@gmail.com> Hi Jennifer, I used the Masa some time ago, and I used one very thin coat of Gamblin PVA, which worked for multiple layers. As I remember, it wasn't really necessary, though. It's been a while since I used it, but I have some paper left. I'll try it again. But on the slick side, I'm pretty sure when I didn't use the PVA, it worked just fine too. Loris-- thanks. I'm gonna try it for pt/pd and check out that easy clearing. :) Diana On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Darkrooms, Department of Art wrote: > Diana, > > Are you sizing the Masa for gum prints? > > Thanks, > Jennifer M. Gioffre > Teaching Support Specialist > > Architecture Art and Planning > Cornell University > 120 Tjaden Hall > Ithaca, NY 14853 > > o: 607-255-4207 > f: 607-255-3462 > Jmg393 at cornell.edu > Darkroommanager at cornell.edu > AAPstore at cornell.edu > > > > > On 12/10/13 9:19 AM, "Loris Medici" wrote: > >> Hi Diana, >> >> One good thing about Masa's thinness is the fact that it clears incredibly >> fast and well. >> >> Regards, >> Loris. >> >> >> From darkroommanager at cornell.edu Tue Dec 10 14:52:23 2013 From: darkroommanager at cornell.edu (Darkrooms, Department of Art) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:52:23 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: <0685BA69-C680-4E52-A312-41B9F447DBC7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Diane, I am relatively new to gum and have had some nice results with the fabriano soft press without sizing. We are always looking for inexpensive papers that do not require sizing to use in our alt process class. I think I'll do a few tests on this paper. Thank you, Jennifer M. Gioffre Teaching Support Specialist Architecture Art and Planning Cornell University 120 Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 o: 607-255-4207 f: 607-255-3462 Jmg393 at cornell.edu Darkroommanager at cornell.edu AAPstore at cornell.edu On 12/10/13 9:43 AM, "Diana Bloomfield" wrote: >Hi Jennifer, > >I used the Masa some time ago, and I used one very thin coat of Gamblin >PVA, which worked for multiple layers. As I remember, it wasn't really >necessary, though. It's been a while since I used it, but I have some >paper left. I'll try it again. But on the slick side, I'm pretty sure >when I didn't use the PVA, it worked just fine too. > >Loris-- thanks. I'm gonna try it for pt/pd and check out that easy >clearing. :) > >Diana > >On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Darkrooms, Department of Art wrote: > >> Diana, >> >> Are you sizing the Masa for gum prints? >> >> Thanks, >> Jennifer M. Gioffre >> Teaching Support Specialist >> >> Architecture Art and Planning >> Cornell University >> 120 Tjaden Hall >> Ithaca, NY 14853 >> >> o: 607-255-4207 >> f: 607-255-3462 >> Jmg393 at cornell.edu >> Darkroommanager at cornell.edu >> AAPstore at cornell.edu >> >> >> >> >> On 12/10/13 9:19 AM, "Loris Medici" wrote: >> >>> Hi Diana, >>> >>> One good thing about Masa's thinness is the fact that it clears >>>incredibly >>> fast and well. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Loris. >>> >>> >>> > >_______________________________________________ >Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 16:56:01 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:56:01 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jennifer, The only issue that a class might have with the Masa is just the thinness of it. It's strong, but a little tricky to work with-- my experience. I always pulled it out of the water and placed it on a sheet of glass to dry, which kept it from getting so wrinkled. I guess the wrinkling could be used to good effect, though. I am now mostly using the BFK Rives heavyweight for gum, which also does not require sizing, and I *think* it's slightly cheaper than the Fabriano, but it's also somewhat smaller (19x26 at Talas for the Rives-- 10 sheets @$3.58/sheet and the Fabriano soft-press, 22x30 at Jerry's for $48.75). But I actually like the Rives better than the Fabriano-- a bit less textured. But it's certainly not down there at the Masa cost. :) Diana On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Darkrooms, Department of Art wrote: > Thank you Diane, > > I am relatively new to gum and have had some nice results with the > fabriano soft press without sizing. We are always looking for inexpensive > papers that do not require sizing to use in our alt process class. I > think I'll do a few tests on this paper. > > Thank you, > Jennifer M. Gioffre > Teaching Support Specialist From fdfragomeni at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 23:08:16 2013 From: fdfragomeni at gmail.com (Francesco Fragomeni) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:08:16 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? In-Reply-To: <0965941B289A43E6BA037E1708AE45B7@Eric64> References: <0965941B289A43E6BA037E1708AE45B7@Eric64> Message-ID: Hi Eric, Thanks for these thoughts. I'll probably have to just test it like you've mentioned. I was thinking that there might already be an understanding of how long these solutions last once they've been mixed together. Thanks for letting me know about your experience when you tested this. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, EJ Photo wrote: > Francesco, I would say to do this for your self. Mix an amount of those > solutions you currently use; maybe 4 times a normal print. Keep it for a > week and then make some prints and test it against the color and speed of > the same from freshly combined chemicals. In my experience, the combined > mix of FO and PT/PD mix printed faster and warmer but your results may be > different. Since I don't know where you get any of your chemistry nor at > what strength you use it, it is impossible to say for sure. The FO is the > part that can go bad, create a fog. Remember it is a new solution with a > new > equilibrium, so you must do it your self. > > I did not run test for storage longer than a few days - 4 to 5. > > Eric Neilsen > Eric Neilsen Photography > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9 > Dallas, TX 75226 > > www.ericneilsenphotography.com > skype me with ejprinter > Let's Talk Photography > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf > Of > Francesco Fragomeni > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 7:19 AM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Longevity of Pt/Pl chemistry after being mixed? > > Yes to clarify, I don't mean the longevity of the individual parts > independent of one another. I mean the longevity of an actual coating > solution once mixed i.e the Platinum, palladium, and ferric oxalate 1 and 2 > mixed together and ready for the paper. > On Dec 9, 2013 5:46 AM, "Philippe Ayral" wrote: > > > Question was about coating solution when *they are mixed into coating > > solutions and then stored* > > > > > > [image: Avatar] > > *Philippe Ayral** Photographie* > > 52, rue de Vallard - 74240 Gaillard > > T?l: 04 50 39 79 81 > > www.payral.fr > > Designed with WiseStamp - > > < > > > > http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding > > %3Fu%3D61c63ff3188fa5ae%26v%3D3.13.7%26t%3D1373729033240%26promo%3D10%26dest > %3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com > %252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253 > Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10 > > >Get > > yours< > > > > http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding > > %3Fu%3D61c63ff3188fa5ae%26v%3D3.13.7%26t%3D1373729033240%26promo%3D10%26dest > %3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com > %252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253 > Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10 > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/12/9 Eric Nelson > > > > > The metals should last indefinitely but the FO goes off after 6 months > or > > > so. I remember this from when I used to buy premixed FO many years ago > > > e > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Francesco Fragomeni < > fdfragomeni at gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > Just a quick question here. Will platinum, palladium, and the ferric > > > > oxalate degrade if they are mixed into coating solutions and then > > stored? > > > > I'm thinking about an experiment in which a larger than usual amount > > of a > > > > coating solution will be mixed and will need to be stored but I don't > > > want > > > > to waste time and money on this if the mixed solutions wont last. > > > Basically > > > > paper will be floated on the solutions which is why larger amounts > need > > > to > > > > be mixed and then stored in between printing sessions. > > > > > > > > Any insight? Will there be any issues with mixed solutions being > > stored? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From frangst at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 02:42:00 2013 From: frangst at gmail.com (francis schanberger) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:42:00 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And coat over felted wool with a hake brush. Wrinkles associated with coating disappear. On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > Hi Jennifer, > > The only issue that a class might have with the Masa is just the thinness > of it. It's strong, but a little tricky to work with-- my experience. I > always pulled it out of the water and placed it on a sheet of glass to dry, > which kept it from getting so wrinkled. I guess the wrinkling could be > used to good effect, though. > > I am now mostly using the BFK Rives heavyweight for gum, which also does > not require sizing, and I *think* it's slightly cheaper than the Fabriano, > but it's also somewhat smaller (19x26 at Talas for the Rives-- 10 sheets > @$3.58/sheet and the Fabriano soft-press, 22x30 at Jerry's for $48.75). > But I actually like the Rives better than the Fabriano-- a bit less > textured. But it's certainly not down there at the Masa cost. :) > > Diana > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Darkrooms, Department of Art wrote: > > > Thank you Diane, > > > > I am relatively new to gum and have had some nice results with the > > fabriano soft press without sizing. We are always looking for > inexpensive > > papers that do not require sizing to use in our alt process class. I > > think I'll do a few tests on this paper. > > > > Thank you, > > Jennifer M. Gioffre > > Teaching Support Specialist > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > -- francis schanberger www.francisschanberger.com From mail at loris.medici.name Wed Dec 11 11:10:30 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:10:30 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: buffer free paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Francis, that video of the Japanese photographer was very helpful indeed. Will definitely help with such thin papers (~30-40 gsm), OTOH Masa doesn't wrinkle while coating; during processing while it's wet it can be easily creased due sloppy handling + it may become wavy while drying. Diana's method is good for minimising waving while drying. (I think the Japanese photographer was also doing something similar; drying on a varnished wood block...) After the print is thoroughly dry and still is a little wavy a clothes iron or dry mount (if you have one) will take care of it. Regards, Loris. 2013/12/11 francis schanberger > And coat over felted wool with a hake brush. Wrinkles associated with > coating disappear. > > On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > > > Hi Jennifer, > > > > The only issue that a class might have with the Masa is just the thinness > > of it. It's strong, but a little tricky to work with-- my experience. I > > always pulled it out of the water and placed it on a sheet of glass to > dry, > > which kept it from getting so wrinkled. I guess the wrinkling could be > > used to good effect, though. > > > > I am now mostly using the BFK Rives heavyweight for gum, which also does > > not require sizing, and I *think* it's slightly cheaper than the > Fabriano, > > but it's also somewhat smaller (19x26 at Talas for the Rives-- 10 sheets > > @$3.58/sheet and the Fabriano soft-press, 22x30 at Jerry's for $48.75). > > But I actually like the Rives better than the Fabriano-- a bit less > > textured. But it's certainly not down there at the Masa cost. :) > > > > Diana > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Darkrooms, Department of Art wrote: > > > > > Thank you Diane, > > > > > > I am relatively new to gum and have had some nice results with the > > > fabriano soft press without sizing. We are always looking for > > inexpensive > > > papers that do not require sizing to use in our alt process class. I > > > think I'll do a few tests on this paper. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Jennifer M. Gioffre > > > Teaching Support Specialist > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > > > -- > francis schanberger > > www.francisschanberger.com > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From e.camerling at tiscali.nl Wed Dec 11 14:56:18 2013 From: e.camerling at tiscali.nl (Erich Camerling) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:56:18 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] 365 nm. UV_Densitometer. Part 7 of 7 Message-ID: <52A87D12.1090903@tiscali.nl> Software At this moment I only can give some tips when you want to print an Eagle file. Suppose you receive the Eagle file : clock factory.brd (Dutch name : klokfabriek06.brd) Open the file in Eagle.You will see the print-drawing and all the parts and even red lines (through connections you have to make before you start putting the parts on the print). On the left side on the monitor screen there is a white vertical file with a lot of symbols. Top-left you see an *i *(info) and just below that are the "layer settings". Click on that symbol and you will get the "display ". On this display you will see : Layers Nr Name The " Nr " file on the left is sometimes blue and sometimes white.When you click on a number the colour will change . For making a print-drawing you must change all the numbers to white EXCEPT nr. 16 , 17 and 18 !!! .They must be BLUE. Then click OK and you will only see the print-drawing. 1) After that click on "File" (top-left), -print -choose the printer -the paper size (I use A4) - the orientation (I use Landscape) -alignment (I use Centre) -area (I use Full) Set preview ON Then you can see where the print is on the paper. Experiment with other settings. Start with scale-factor = 1. Then you get the exact size for making the print. Try printing on paper (cheap) and when all is okay print on film.( see : You-do-it- yourself means: 5 ) Later you can change the factor , I sometimes use 2 or 2.8 or even 3x. A higher scale-factor you can use for a personal-use-print on paper.But don't make the factor too high , the drawing must fit on an A4 . (or on an A3 when you have such a printer ) After that you must change all the numbers to white EXCEPT nr. 20 , 21 and 25 , they must be BLUE. Then click OK and you will see all the parts . Repeat 1) with the same settings and after printing on film you can put the film on top of the other and see where the parts must be placed on the print To be continued when I receive serious questions about the 365 nm.UV-Densitometer I didn't tell you before. So good luck when you start building this meter. Kind regards, Erich Camerling From ender100 at aol.com Fri Dec 13 03:57:22 2013 From: ender100 at aol.com (Nelson Mark) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:57:22 -0600 Subject: [Alt-photo] Test Message-ID: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> Not receiving any posts Best Wishes, Mark Nelson Welcome to the Precision Digital Negatives Home! PDNPrint : Precision Digital Negatives Forum Mark I. Nelson Photography - Welcome From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 04:03:49 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:03:49 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Test In-Reply-To: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> References: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> Message-ID: <974B66A2-102C-4712-8878-00B4B5C91D7A@gmail.com> Me either. Are we missing anything? I assume no one is posting. Happy Holidays. :) Diana On Dec 12, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Nelson Mark wrote: > Not receiving any posts > > Best Wishes, > Mark Nelson > > Welcome to the Precision Digital Negatives Home! > PDNPrint : Precision Digital Negatives Forum > Mark I. Nelson Photography - Welcome > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From jon at sharperstill.com Fri Dec 13 04:24:31 2013 From: jon at sharperstill.com (Jon Reid) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:24:31 +1100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Test In-Reply-To: <974B66A2-102C-4712-8878-00B4B5C91D7A@gmail.com> References: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> <974B66A2-102C-4712-8878-00B4B5C91D7A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52AA8BFF.9090107@sharperstill.com> Nothing since the buffered paper discussion I think. *sharperstill* - photography by jon reid ABN: 18 812 290 019 Portfolio Site: http://www.sharperstill.com/ Mobile: +61 417 622 470 Email: jon at sharperstill.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/sharperstill > Diana Bloomfield > 13 December 2013 15:03 > Me either. Are we missing anything? I assume no one is posting. > Happy Holidays. :) > > Diana > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From sanking at clemson.edu Fri Dec 13 04:45:01 2013 From: sanking at clemson.edu (Sandy King) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Test In-Reply-To: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> References: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> Message-ID: Mark, We are here. Just waiting to be touched and moved by the Word!! Sandy On Dec 12, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Nelson Mark wrote: > Not receiving any posts > > Best Wishes, > Mark Nelson > > Welcome to the Precision Digital Negatives Home! > PDNPrint : Precision Digital Negatives Forum > Mark I. Nelson Photography - Welcome > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From samwang864 at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 04:55:34 2013 From: samwang864 at gmail.com (sam wang) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:55:34 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Test In-Reply-To: References: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> Message-ID: <1FCDEFBE-5A9E-41B6-9F2C-333BE48A88B5@gmail.com> You can?t even stir up any activities with the mention of gum stain test anymore! I guess everyone is in the studio making perfect prints. Either that or making selfies with Instagram. Sam On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Sandy King wrote: > Mark, > > We are here. Just waiting to be touched and moved by the Word!! > > Sandy > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Nelson Mark wrote: > >> Not receiving any posts >> >> Best Wishes, >> Mark Nelson >> >> Welcome to the Precision Digital Negatives Home! >> PDNPrint : Precision Digital Negatives Forum >> Mark I. Nelson Photography - Welcome >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From workshops at polychrome.nl Fri Dec 13 09:42:56 2013 From: workshops at polychrome.nl (Kees Brandenburg) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:42:56 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Test In-Reply-To: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> References: <6A4E8466-2E75-4D63-A2FD-3BB67A7DE340@aol.com> Message-ID: <3EA1D143-8F89-49ED-83AC-834B4E121D18@polychrome.nl> Hi Mark, Unfortunately you seem to be one of the people with a mail provider that blocks mail from the listserver. After some bounces mailman, the software that runs this list kicks out the affected addresses from the sending list. It ?s still possible to send mail to the list though! But receiving the posts stops. Our hosting provider did try to sort this out with aol, att and earthlink. But without result for now. The server is not blacklisted anywhere as far as I can see. The only immediate solution to this problem is resubscribing with another e-mailaddress not hosted by these providers. Another way to check the posts is by going to the current archive: http://lists.altphotolist.org/pipermail/alt-photo-process-list/ Other archives are here: http://altphotolist.org All people that saw marks are not affected by this. And yes it has been quiet on the list.... regards, Kees On 13 dec. 2013, at 04:57, Nelson Mark wrote: > Not receiving any posts > > Best Wishes, > Mark Nelson > > Welcome to the Precision Digital Negatives Home! > PDNPrint : Precision Digital Negatives Forum > Mark I. Nelson Photography - Welcome > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From bob at colorfolio.com Fri Dec 13 19:45:34 2013 From: bob at colorfolio.com (Bob Cornelis) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:45:34 -0800 Subject: [Alt-photo] new member and a question Message-ID: Hello all Just joined the group and am excited about learning from everyone here! I've owned a custom digital printing lab for the last 15 years (colorfolio.com) but have recently started doing alt process work on my own images - guess I feel need to clear my palette from all the digital-only work I do for others. I've been doing palladium printing and am starting to venture out into cyanotype and hopefully kallitypes soon. I'm working from digital negs so that part is relatively familiar for me with my background - but I'm new to all the issues related to chemistry, papers, etc on the backend. Using a nuarcs for uv exposure. I've been using cot320 so far for my palladium prints and like it a lot but it is hard to find in stock and, of course, expensive. Been following with interest the discussion of Masa paper - my wife is a painter and uses it all the time. A friend who has tried it for pt/pd printing says there are different kinds and he has not had success with them. So I'm curious to find out from those recommending it where they purchased theirs and/or what kind of Masa paper it is. Also, do you print on the smooth or rough side? Also looking for suggestions for best papers for cyanotype - I've used cot320, rives bfk a little and have crane platinotype on order. Other suggestions? Regards Bob Cornelis ---------------------- 707.824.8910 http://www.bobcornelis.com http://bobcornelis.wordpress.com From johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 14:27:28 2013 From: johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com (John Brewer) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:27:28 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: new member and a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <791513DD-DD35-4BFD-BA45-FF7BE08E1F0A@gmail.com> Hi Bob Have a look at Jalo's article here http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/paper/tests-in-blue-papers-for-cyanotypes and also here http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/cyanotype/the-big-cyanotype-exposure-survey-results All the best John Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Dec 2013, at 07:45 pm, Bob Cornelis wrote: > > Hello all > > Just joined the group and am excited about learning from everyone here! I've owned a custom digital printing lab for the last 15 years (colorfolio.com) but have recently started doing alt process work on my own images - guess I feel need to clear my palette from all the digital-only work I do for others. > > I've been doing palladium printing and am starting to venture out into cyanotype and hopefully kallitypes soon. I'm working from digital negs so that part is relatively familiar for me with my background - but I'm new to all the issues related to chemistry, papers, etc on the backend. Using a nuarcs for uv exposure. > > I've been using cot320 so far for my palladium prints and like it a lot but it is hard to find in stock and, of course, expensive. Been following with interest the discussion of Masa paper - my wife is a painter and uses it all the time. A friend who has tried it for pt/pd printing says there are different kinds and he has not had success with them. So I'm curious to find out from those recommending it where they purchased theirs and/or what kind of Masa paper it is. Also, do you print on the smooth or rough side? > > Also looking for suggestions for best papers for cyanotype - I've used cot320, rives bfk a little and have crane platinotype on order. Other suggestions? > > Regards > Bob Cornelis > ---------------------- > 707.824.8910 > http://www.bobcornelis.com > http://bobcornelis.wordpress.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From mail at loris.medici.name Sat Dec 14 16:26:35 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:26:35 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: new member and a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome Bob, ?? ?I only know one Masa paper (could be minute differences between batches, I've used three different batches up to date...) and the package states 86 gsm. In various websites I see weight figures such as 70 gsm, 77 gsm and 43lb (not sure how that translates; if it's the weight for 500 imperial size - 22x30" - sheets, that would be equivalent to ~ 92 gsm...) I think you'll be fine with the heaviest you can find. 70 gsm is significantly thinner than the 86 gsm I have on hands!!! You can use both sides. Naturally, the smooth side will give better image definition... Regards, Loris. 2013/12/13 Bob Cornelis > ?... > I've been using cot320 so far for my palladium prints and like it a lot but > it is hard to find in stock and, of course, expensive. Been following with > interest the discussion of Masa paper - my wife is a painter and uses it > all the time. A friend who has tried it for pt/pd printing says there are > different kinds and he has not had success with them. So I'm curious to > find out from those recommending it where they purchased theirs and/or what > kind of Masa paper it is. Also, do you print on the smooth or rough side? > > Also looking for suggestions for best papers for cyanotype - I've used > cot320, rives bfk a little and have crane platinotype on order. Other > suggestions? > ?? > > From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 17:30:14 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 18:30:14 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Brushing gelatin on paper Message-ID: Hi All, I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison have been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking at the surface from an angle. Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not get into the paper? Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it correctly. Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden the gelatin before making a comparison. I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and valleys, but nothing else. I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was sized by someone else. - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper I sized on a previous batch. Feeling frustrated.... Thanks for any help, Luciano From mail at loris.medici.name Sun Dec 15 17:44:29 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:44:29 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-2062854553479628450@unknownmsgid> Hi Luciano, the usual size is 3%. I think you've used a too strong solution? > On 15 Ara 2013, at 19:33, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information all of > you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, I am just > getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the usual > mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it with a foam > brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. This > morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I had the > bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of scraps of papers I > have from two previous workshops. > > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow (both > Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light table, so my > doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of course I cannot be > sure because the samples I used for comparison have been tray sized and not > brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin used is similar to Knox > (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used Photographers' Formulary Hard > Gelatin (250 Bloom). > > Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized > paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. > > When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically and > diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with pigment, but > almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking at the surface > from an angle. > > Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not get > into the paper? > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that I > presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden the > gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a comparison) > it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and valleys, but nothing > else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only thing > different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is the same, > done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was sized by > someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper I > sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 17:45:13 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:45:13 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> Hi Luciano, This is just my experience, but when I used to size with gelatin, I never felt I got things quite right, and once I started printing-- it worked out okay-- no staining-- but I could always see a difference where the gelatin went on too lightly in places. I suspect the paper I was using was textured enough that the gelatin was never absorbed evenly across the page. That unevenness always showed up in the final print (enough to bother me, though maybe others didn't notice it). And I'm sure lots of people still size their papers for gum, but there are at least two papers out there that I've been using that require no sizing at all (and I've made many multiple layers on prints). Other people on the list use them as well-- which is where I got the information. I also don't pre-shrink these papers, and have made prints up to 17x17. Maybe they would be fine bigger, too, but I don't currently have the capability of making bigger prints. One of the papers is Fabriano soft-press 140 lb; the other is BFK Rives heavyweight. I use both, and only just started using the BFK this past year. They're terrific. And as long as they keep making these papers the way they're made now, I would never go back to gelatin sizing (or any sizing) for gum printing. So when I read your description here, it just sounds so time-consuming and tiresome and primitive-- when you really don't need to do it all. Why not try one of these papers, and don't bother with sizing? Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information all of > you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, I am just > getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the usual > mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it with a foam > brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. This > morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I had the > bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of scraps of papers I > have from two previous workshops. > > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow (both > Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light table, so my > doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of course I cannot be > sure because the samples I used for comparison have been tray sized and not > brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin used is similar to Knox > (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used Photographers' Formulary Hard > Gelatin (250 Bloom). > > Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized > paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. > > When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically and > diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with pigment, but > almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking at the surface > from an angle. > > Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not get > into the paper? > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that I > presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden the > gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a comparison) > it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and valleys, but nothing > else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only thing > different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is the same, > done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was sized by > someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper I > sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 17:52:14 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 18:52:14 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <-2062854553479628450@unknownmsgid> References: <-2062854553479628450@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <493111AB285148AFAEA005BF20E614DA@Nuvoletta> Hi Loris, Sorry, I meant 3%. I used 12g of gelatin in 400ml of distilled water. Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Loris Medici Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:44 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hi Luciano, the usual size is 3%. I think you've used a too strong solution? > On 15 Ara 2013, at 19:33, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information > all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, > I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the > usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it > with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. > This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I > had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of > scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. > > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow > (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light > table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of > course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison have > been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin > used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used > Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). > > Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized > paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. > > When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically > and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with > pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking > at the surface from an angle. > > Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not > get into the paper? > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that > I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden > the gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a > comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and > valleys, but nothing else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only > thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is > the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was > sized by someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper > I sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 18:08:13 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:08:13 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> Hi Diana, I will give it a try if I only could find those types of paper here. The Fabriano soft-press you use is textured? Also is it Traditional or Extra White? By looking at the Fabriano site there are so many choices... Artistico Traditional White: http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/22/artistico_traditional_white Artistico Extra White: http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/15/artistico_extra_white The BFK Rives heavyweight is this one? http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp Thanks for the help, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:45 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hi Luciano, This is just my experience, but when I used to size with gelatin, I never felt I got things quite right, and once I started printing-- it worked out okay-- no staining-- but I could always see a difference where the gelatin went on too lightly in places. I suspect the paper I was using was textured enough that the gelatin was never absorbed evenly across the page. That unevenness always showed up in the final print (enough to bother me, though maybe others didn't notice it). And I'm sure lots of people still size their papers for gum, but there are at least two papers out there that I've been using that require no sizing at all (and I've made many multiple layers on prints). Other people on the list use them as well-- which is where I got the information. I also don't pre-shrink these papers, and have made prints up to 17x17. Maybe they would be fine bigger, too, but I don't currently have the capability of making bigger prints. One of the papers is Fabriano soft-press 140 lb; the other is BFK Rives heavyweight. I use both, and only just started using the BFK this past year. They're terrific. And as long as they keep making these papers the way they're made now, I would never go back to gelatin sizing (or any sizing) for gum printing. So when I read your description here, it just sounds so time-consuming and tiresome and primitive-- when you really don't need to do it all. Why not try one of these papers, and don't bother with sizing? Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information > all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, > I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the > usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it > with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. > This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I > had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of > scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. > > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow > (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light > table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of > course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison have > been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin > used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used > Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). > > Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized > paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. > > When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically > and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with > pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking > at the surface from an angle. > > Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not > get into the paper? > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that > I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden > the gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a > comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and > valleys, but nothing else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only > thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is > the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was > sized by someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper > I sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 18:22:41 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:22:41 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <84310B9A35C84D68B57CF243D9E9FC7C@Nuvoletta> Hi Diana, After I saw this link (http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp) I had an illumination, and I found a sample pack of Canson paper for inkjet printing I had and inside I found two A4 sheets of BFK Rives 310gsm. I will give it a try as soon as possible and report back. Thanks again, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Luciano Teghillo Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:08 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hi Diana, I will give it a try if I only could find those types of paper here. The Fabriano soft-press you use is textured? Also is it Traditional or Extra White? By looking at the Fabriano site there are so many choices... Artistico Traditional White: http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/22/artistico_traditional_white Artistico Extra White: http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/15/artistico_extra_white The BFK Rives heavyweight is this one? http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp Thanks for the help, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:45 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hi Luciano, This is just my experience, but when I used to size with gelatin, I never felt I got things quite right, and once I started printing-- it worked out okay-- no staining-- but I could always see a difference where the gelatin went on too lightly in places. I suspect the paper I was using was textured enough that the gelatin was never absorbed evenly across the page. That unevenness always showed up in the final print (enough to bother me, though maybe others didn't notice it). And I'm sure lots of people still size their papers for gum, but there are at least two papers out there that I've been using that require no sizing at all (and I've made many multiple layers on prints). Other people on the list use them as well-- which is where I got the information. I also don't pre-shrink these papers, and have made prints up to 17x17. Maybe they would be fine bigger, too, but I don't currently have the capability of making bigger prints. One of the papers is Fabriano soft-press 140 lb; the other is BFK Rives heavyweight. I use both, and only just started using the BFK this past year. They're terrific. And as long as they keep making these papers the way they're made now, I would never go back to gelatin sizing (or any sizing) for gum printing. So when I read your description here, it just sounds so time-consuming and tiresome and primitive-- when you really don't need to do it all. Why not try one of these papers, and don't bother with sizing? Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information > all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, > I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the > usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it > with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. > This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I > had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of > scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. > > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow > (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light > table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of > course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison have > been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin > used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used > Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). > > Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized > paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. > > When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically > and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with > pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking > at the surface from an angle. > > Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not > get into the paper? > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that > I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden > the gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a > comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and > valleys, but nothing else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only > thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is > the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was > sized by someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper > I sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 18:26:43 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <63BC553D-806C-468F-9FBF-50BC2A9CC644@gmail.com> Hi Luciano, The Rives "heavyweight" that I mostly use is from Talas, in NYC, and it seems to be 175 gsm. I've also ordered it from Daniel Smith, though, and their "heavyweight" is 280 gsm. So it really seems to vary, but both have worked fine for me (just the same). This heavier one that you can get may work equally well. I'd get a few samples, if it's accessible to you and try it. The Fabriano Artistico is 140 lb soft-press, extra white. It's the only Fabriano I've worked where I got no staining at all with no sizing (and no pre-shrinking). I don't pre-shrink the Rives, either. The soft-press is somewhat textured, but nothing at all like their cold- or rough-press-- but compared to the hot-press, it is lightly textured. Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Hi Diana, > > I will give it a try if I only could find those types of paper here. > > The Fabriano soft-press you use is textured? Also is it Traditional or Extra > White? > By looking at the Fabriano site there are so many choices... > Artistico Traditional White: > http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/22/artistico_traditional_white > Artistico Extra White: http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/15/artistico_extra_white > > The BFK Rives heavyweight is this one? > http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp > > Thanks for the help, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of > Diana Bloomfield > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:45 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Luciano, > > This is just my experience, but when I used to size with gelatin, I never > felt I got things quite right, and once I started printing-- it worked out > okay-- no staining-- but I could always see a difference where the gelatin > went on too lightly in places. I suspect the paper I was using was textured > enough that the gelatin was never absorbed evenly across the page. That > unevenness always showed up in the final print (enough to bother me, though > maybe others didn't notice it). > > And I'm sure lots of people still size their papers for gum, but there are > at least two papers out there that I've been using that require no sizing at > all (and I've made many multiple layers on prints). Other people on the list > use them as well-- which is where I got the information. I also don't > pre-shrink these papers, and have made prints up to 17x17. Maybe they would > be fine bigger, too, but I don't currently have the capability of making > bigger prints. > > One of the papers is Fabriano soft-press 140 lb; the other is BFK Rives > heavyweight. I use both, and only just started using the BFK this past > year. They're terrific. And as long as they keep making these papers the > way they're made now, I would never go back to gelatin sizing (or any > sizing) for gum printing. > > So when I read your description here, it just sounds so time-consuming and > tiresome and primitive-- when you really don't need to do it all. Why not > try one of these papers, and don't bother with sizing? > > Diana > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information >> all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, >> I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. >> >> I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the >> usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it >> with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. >> I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. >> This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I >> had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of >> scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. >> >> The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow >> (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light >> table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of >> course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison have >> been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin >> used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used >> Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). >> >> Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized >> paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. >> >> When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically >> and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with >> pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking >> at the surface from an angle. >> >> Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not >> get into the paper? >> >> Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that >> I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it >> correctly. >> >> Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden >> the gelatin before making a comparison. >> >> I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a >> comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and >> valleys, but nothing else. >> >> I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only >> thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is >> the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. >> >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was >> sized by someone else. >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper >> I sized on a previous batch. >> >> Feeling frustrated.... >> >> Thanks for any help, >> Luciano >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 18:27:44 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <84310B9A35C84D68B57CF243D9E9FC7C@Nuvoletta> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> <84310B9A35C84D68B57CF243D9E9FC7C@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <4044F931-218A-4377-884E-E2E6036EFB0D@gmail.com> Oh, great. Do let us know what happens. If it works for you, and I don't see why it shouldn't-- you'll wonder why you ever used a gelatin sizing. :) Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi Diana, > > After I saw this link (http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp) I had > an illumination, and I found a sample pack of Canson paper for inkjet > printing I had and inside I found two A4 sheets of BFK Rives 310gsm. I will > give it a try as soon as possible and report back. > > Thanks again, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of > Luciano Teghillo > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:08 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Diana, > > I will give it a try if I only could find those types of paper here. > > The Fabriano soft-press you use is textured? Also is it Traditional or Extra > White? > By looking at the Fabriano site there are so many choices... > Artistico Traditional White: > http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/22/artistico_traditional_white > Artistico Extra White: http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/15/artistico_extra_white > > The BFK Rives heavyweight is this one? > http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp > > Thanks for the help, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of > Diana Bloomfield > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:45 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Luciano, > > This is just my experience, but when I used to size with gelatin, I never > felt I got things quite right, and once I started printing-- it worked out > okay-- no staining-- but I could always see a difference where the gelatin > went on too lightly in places. I suspect the paper I was using was textured > enough that the gelatin was never absorbed evenly across the page. That > unevenness always showed up in the final print (enough to bother me, though > maybe others didn't notice it). > > And I'm sure lots of people still size their papers for gum, but there are > at least two papers out there that I've been using that require no sizing at > all (and I've made many multiple layers on prints). Other people on the list > use them as well-- which is where I got the information. I also don't > pre-shrink these papers, and have made prints up to 17x17. Maybe they would > be fine bigger, too, but I don't currently have the capability of making > bigger prints. > > One of the papers is Fabriano soft-press 140 lb; the other is BFK Rives > heavyweight. I use both, and only just started using the BFK this past > year. They're terrific. And as long as they keep making these papers the > way they're made now, I would never go back to gelatin sizing (or any > sizing) for gum printing. > > So when I read your description here, it just sounds so time-consuming and > tiresome and primitive-- when you really don't need to do it all. Why not > try one of these papers, and don't bother with sizing? > > Diana > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information >> all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, >> I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. >> >> I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the >> usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it >> with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. >> I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. >> This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I >> had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of >> scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. >> >> The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow >> (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light >> table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of >> course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison have >> been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin >> used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used >> Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). >> >> Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized >> paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. >> >> When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically >> and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with >> pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking >> at the surface from an angle. >> >> Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not >> get into the paper? >> >> Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that >> I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it >> correctly. >> >> Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden >> the gelatin before making a comparison. >> >> I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a >> comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and >> valleys, but nothing else. >> >> I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only >> thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is >> the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. >> >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was >> sized by someone else. >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper >> I sized on a previous batch. >> >> Feeling frustrated.... >> >> Thanks for any help, >> Luciano >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 18:38:19 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:38:19 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <63BC553D-806C-468F-9FBF-50BC2A9CC644@gmail.com> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> <63BC553D-806C-468F-9FBF-50BC2A9CC644@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Diana, Perfect, thanks. I will see what I can find here. Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:27 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hi Luciano, The Rives "heavyweight" that I mostly use is from Talas, in NYC, and it seems to be 175 gsm. I've also ordered it from Daniel Smith, though, and their "heavyweight" is 280 gsm. So it really seems to vary, but both have worked fine for me (just the same). This heavier one that you can get may work equally well. I'd get a few samples, if it's accessible to you and try it. The Fabriano Artistico is 140 lb soft-press, extra white. It's the only Fabriano I've worked where I got no staining at all with no sizing (and no pre-shrinking). I don't pre-shrink the Rives, either. The soft-press is somewhat textured, but nothing at all like their cold- or rough-press-- but compared to the hot-press, it is lightly textured. Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Hi Diana, > > I will give it a try if I only could find those types of paper here. > > The Fabriano soft-press you use is textured? Also is it Traditional or > Extra White? > By looking at the Fabriano site there are so many choices... > Artistico Traditional White: > http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/22/artistico_traditional_white > Artistico Extra White: > http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/15/artistico_extra_white > > The BFK Rives heavyweight is this one? > http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp > > Thanks for the help, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On > Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:45 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Luciano, > > This is just my experience, but when I used to size with gelatin, I > never felt I got things quite right, and once I started printing-- it > worked out > okay-- no staining-- but I could always see a difference where the > gelatin went on too lightly in places. I suspect the paper I was > using was textured enough that the gelatin was never absorbed evenly > across the page. That unevenness always showed up in the final print > (enough to bother me, though maybe others didn't notice it). > > And I'm sure lots of people still size their papers for gum, but there > are at least two papers out there that I've been using that require no > sizing at all (and I've made many multiple layers on prints). Other > people on the list use them as well-- which is where I got the > information. I also don't pre-shrink these papers, and have made > prints up to 17x17. Maybe they would be fine bigger, too, but I don't > currently have the capability of making bigger prints. > > One of the papers is Fabriano soft-press 140 lb; the other is BFK > Rives heavyweight. I use both, and only just started using the BFK > this past year. They're terrific. And as long as they keep making > these papers the way they're made now, I would never go back to > gelatin sizing (or any > sizing) for gum printing. > > So when I read your description here, it just sounds so time-consuming > and tiresome and primitive-- when you really don't need to do it all. > Why not try one of these papers, and don't bother with sizing? > > Diana > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information >> all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, >> I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. >> >> I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the >> usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it >> with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. >> I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. >> This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but >> I had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of >> scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. >> >> The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow >> (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light >> table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. >> Of course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison >> have been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the >> gelatin used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while >> I used Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). >> >> Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same >> unsized paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. >> >> When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, >> vertically and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you >> coat with pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform >> by looking at the surface from an angle. >> >> Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does >> not get into the paper? >> >> Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that >> I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it >> correctly. >> >> Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden >> the gelatin before making a comparison. >> >> I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a >> comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and >> valleys, but nothing else. >> >> I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only >> thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else >> is the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. >> >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was >> sized by someone else. >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the >> paper I sized on a previous batch. >> >> Feeling frustrated.... >> >> Thanks for any help, >> Luciano >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 18:40:44 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:40:44 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <4044F931-218A-4377-884E-E2E6036EFB0D@gmail.com> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> <84310B9A35C84D68B57CF243D9E9FC7C@Nuvoletta> <4044F931-218A-4377-884E-E2E6036EFB0D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Keeping my fingers crossed. I can't wait to try, and if successful, I will try to source a pack of A4 sheets to play during the holidays. I will make sure to report back on my findings. All the best, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:28 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Oh, great. Do let us know what happens. If it works for you, and I don't see why it shouldn't-- you'll wonder why you ever used a gelatin sizing. :) Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi Diana, > > After I saw this link (http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp) I > had an illumination, and I found a sample pack of Canson paper for > inkjet printing I had and inside I found two A4 sheets of BFK Rives > 310gsm. I will give it a try as soon as possible and report back. > > Thanks again, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On > Behalf Of Luciano Teghillo > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 7:08 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Diana, > > I will give it a try if I only could find those types of paper here. > > The Fabriano soft-press you use is textured? Also is it Traditional or > Extra White? > By looking at the Fabriano site there are so many choices... > Artistico Traditional White: > http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/22/artistico_traditional_white > Artistico Extra White: > http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/15/artistico_extra_white > > The BFK Rives heavyweight is this one? > http://www.canson-infinity.com/it/bfk310.asp > > Thanks for the help, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On > Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:45 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Luciano, > > This is just my experience, but when I used to size with gelatin, I > never felt I got things quite right, and once I started printing-- it > worked out > okay-- no staining-- but I could always see a difference where the > gelatin went on too lightly in places. I suspect the paper I was > using was textured enough that the gelatin was never absorbed evenly > across the page. That unevenness always showed up in the final print > (enough to bother me, though maybe others didn't notice it). > > And I'm sure lots of people still size their papers for gum, but there > are at least two papers out there that I've been using that require no > sizing at all (and I've made many multiple layers on prints). Other > people on the list use them as well-- which is where I got the > information. I also don't pre-shrink these papers, and have made > prints up to 17x17. Maybe they would be fine bigger, too, but I don't > currently have the capability of making bigger prints. > > One of the papers is Fabriano soft-press 140 lb; the other is BFK > Rives heavyweight. I use both, and only just started using the BFK > this past year. They're terrific. And as long as they keep making > these papers the way they're made now, I would never go back to > gelatin sizing (or any > sizing) for gum printing. > > So when I read your description here, it just sounds so time-consuming > and tiresome and primitive-- when you really don't need to do it all. > Why not try one of these papers, and don't bother with sizing? > > Diana > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information >> all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, >> I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. >> >> I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the >> usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it >> with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. >> I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. >> This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but >> I had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of >> scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. >> >> The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow >> (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light >> table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. >> Of course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison >> have been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the >> gelatin used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while >> I used Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). >> >> Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same >> unsized paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. >> >> When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, >> vertically and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you >> coat with pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform >> by looking at the surface from an angle. >> >> Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does >> not get into the paper? >> >> Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that >> I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it >> correctly. >> >> Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden >> the gelatin before making a comparison. >> >> I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a >> comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and >> valleys, but nothing else. >> >> I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only >> thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else >> is the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. >> >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was >> sized by someone else. >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the >> paper I sized on a previous batch. >> >> Feeling frustrated.... >> >> Thanks for any help, >> Luciano >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From mail at loris.medici.name Sun Dec 15 19:23:01 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:23:01 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <493111AB285148AFAEA005BF20E614DA@Nuvoletta> References: <-2062854553479628450@unknownmsgid> <493111AB285148AFAEA005BF20E614DA@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: Ok, Luciano. 3% is fine then. OTOH, why two coats of sizing and why a separate hardening bath? When I was sizing with gelatin (I don't anymore, I use PVA now) I was doing as have described here: http://www.dpug.org/forums/f29/sizing-hardening-1768/#9 ?Different gelatin will have different coloration. I think the yellowing is not because you haven't used enough gelatin, it's because you've used too much... Anyway, Diana's suggestion is sound: if you can find papers that works w/o sizing opt for them, since sizing is an annoying task. Regards, Loris. 2013/12/15 Luciano Teghillo > Hi Loris, > > Sorry, I meant 3%. I used 12g of gelatin in 400ml of distilled water. > > Luciano > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf > Of > Loris Medici > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:44 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Luciano, the usual size is 3%. I think you've used a too strong > solution? > > > > On 15 Ara 2013, at 19:33, Luciano Teghillo > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information > > all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, > > I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the > > usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it > > with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. > > This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I > > had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of > > scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. > From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 19:26:35 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:26:35 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: <-2062854553479628450@unknownmsgid> <493111AB285148AFAEA005BF20E614DA@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <4F4852B8-CF15-4691-9201-B868F9B7A146@gmail.com> I'm with Loris here. And before I found these amazing papers that required no sizing, I had moved on from gelatin to one very thin coating of PVA, which also worked far better (than gelatin) for me. On Dec 15, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Loris Medici wrote: > Ok, Luciano. 3% is fine then. OTOH, why two coats of sizing and why a > separate hardening bath? > > When I was sizing with gelatin (I don't anymore, I use PVA now) I was doing > as have described here: > http://www.dpug.org/forums/f29/sizing-hardening-1768/#9 > > ?Different gelatin will have different coloration. I think the yellowing is > not because you haven't used enough gelatin, it's because you've used too > much... > > Anyway, Diana's suggestion is sound: if you can find papers that works w/o > sizing opt for them, since sizing is an annoying task. > > Regards, > Loris. > > > 2013/12/15 Luciano Teghillo > >> Hi Loris, >> >> Sorry, I meant 3%. I used 12g of gelatin in 400ml of distilled water. >> >> Luciano >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org >> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Loris Medici >> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:44 PM >> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org >> Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper >> >> Hi Luciano, the usual size is 3%. I think you've used a too strong >> solution? >> >> >>> On 15 Ara 2013, at 19:33, Luciano Teghillo >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information >>> all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, >>> I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. >>> >>> I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the >>> usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it >>> with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. >>> I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. >>> This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I >>> had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of >>> scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. >> > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From christinazanderson at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 19:36:18 2013 From: christinazanderson at gmail.com (Christina Anderson) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:36:18 -0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Luciano, Do NOT throw that paper. You did not size incorrectly. And, even if you did use too little sizing as you may think, you can always use one more coating if desired. However, I think two coatings errs on too much sizing. Yellowing can definitely be from too much gelatin as Loris says. It can also be from certain hardeners on alkaline paper. I cannot see my gelatin sizing once it is soaked into the paper. It is very hard to see. I have to actually label which side I size to see it. Sometimes I can see a bead of glossy gelatin along the edge of the paper. I do not use two coats of gelatin when I size, only one. Otherwise it can get too slick and flaking can occur, but some do use two coats. I have also been using Gamblin PVA sizing 1+2 water on Fabriano Artistico Extra White and it does adequately well. That, too, is very hard to see on the paper, although it is easier to feel it. It feels a bit smooth and acrylic-y. Chris > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that I > presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden the > gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a comparison) > it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and valleys, but nothing > else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only thing > different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is the same, > done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was sized by > someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper I > sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 19:44:31 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:44:31 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: <-2062854553479628450@unknownmsgid> <493111AB285148AFAEA005BF20E614DA@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <44037130C10441F7B1F52BFB9FEC9FB0@Nuvoletta> Hi Loris, I am really, really scared of formalin, so I was/am not sure if it's a good idea to pour even a small amount in the hot/fuming gelatin. I coat twice with gelatin because in the first workshop I attended, the instructor suggested to use two immersion cycles in gelatin (the second after the first one is dried, of course), and a separate hardening bath in formalin. So I kept at it. I was not trying to reach the same yellowing of the paper, but the fact that my paper was a lot more white, made me think I was doing something wrong, since the tests I did on papers not sized by me where OK. I have also tried the PVA size but did not pursue (at the time I had other issues), but if I have no luck with the papers suggested by Diana, I will give the PVA glue another shot. Thanks, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Loris Medici Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:23 PM To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Ok, Luciano. 3% is fine then. OTOH, why two coats of sizing and why a separate hardening bath? When I was sizing with gelatin (I don't anymore, I use PVA now) I was doing as have described here: http://www.dpug.org/forums/f29/sizing-hardening-1768/#9 ?Different gelatin will have different coloration. I think the yellowing is not because you haven't used enough gelatin, it's because you've used too much... Anyway, Diana's suggestion is sound: if you can find papers that works w/o sizing opt for them, since sizing is an annoying task. Regards, Loris. 2013/12/15 Luciano Teghillo > Hi Loris, > > Sorry, I meant 3%. I used 12g of gelatin in 400ml of distilled water. > > Luciano > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On > Behalf Of Loris Medici > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:44 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Hi Luciano, the usual size is 3%. I think you've used a too strong > solution? > > > > On 15 Ara 2013, at 19:33, Luciano Teghillo > > > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information > > all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing > > because...well, I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the > > usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it > > with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. > > This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but > > I had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of > > scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 19:47:12 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:47:12 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53AD98F64D7849B8897A8B8F591C4BD6@Nuvoletta> Chris, Thanks very much for the suggestions. I have sized only a small batch so I will harden it as is and try. For the next round I will use only one coat. My question is: how do you coat the gelatin? I dip a foam brush in the gelatin, and put a fair amount on the paper, then I smooth it using horizontal, vertical and diagonal strokes, charging the brush as needed. The whole operation lasts just under or slightly more than a minute on an A4 sheet, and when I am done there is no gelatin dripping. Basically I use the same technique used for coating the pigmented gum/dichromate but a lot more relaxed :-) Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Christina Anderson Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:36 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Luciano, Do NOT throw that paper. You did not size incorrectly. And, even if you did use too little sizing as you may think, you can always use one more coating if desired. However, I think two coatings errs on too much sizing. Yellowing can definitely be from too much gelatin as Loris says. It can also be from certain hardeners on alkaline paper. I cannot see my gelatin sizing once it is soaked into the paper. It is very hard to see. I have to actually label which side I size to see it. Sometimes I can see a bead of glossy gelatin along the edge of the paper. I do not use two coats of gelatin when I size, only one. Otherwise it can get too slick and flaking can occur, but some do use two coats. I have also been using Gamblin PVA sizing 1+2 water on Fabriano Artistico Extra White and it does adequately well. That, too, is very hard to see on the paper, although it is easier to feel it. It feels a bit smooth and acrylic-y. Chris > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that > I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden > the gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a > comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and > valleys, but nothing else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only > thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is > the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was > sized by someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper > I sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From christinazanderson at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 19:58:04 2013 From: christinazanderson at gmail.com (Christina Anderson) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:58:04 -0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <53AD98F64D7849B8897A8B8F591C4BD6@Nuvoletta> References: <53AD98F64D7849B8897A8B8F591C4BD6@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <0FE018B0-9236-49E0-9238-A4EFEDFF60DB@gmail.com> That is exactly how I do it, Luciano. If I am doing pieces 11x14 I do tray size (which is a mess) but usually I gelatin size 16x20 with the brush. I do mix my hardener in with the gelatin. Chris Christina Z. Anderson http://christinaZanderson.com/ On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Chris, > > Thanks very much for the suggestions. I have sized only a small batch so I > will harden it as is and try. For the next round I will use only one coat. > My question is: how do you coat the gelatin? I dip a foam brush in the > gelatin, and put a fair amount on the paper, then I smooth it using > horizontal, vertical and diagonal strokes, charging the brush as needed. > > The whole operation lasts just under or slightly more than a minute on an A4 > sheet, and when I am done there is no gelatin dripping. Basically I use the > same technique used for coating the pigmented gum/dichromate but a lot more > relaxed :-) > > Luciano > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of > Christina Anderson > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:36 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Luciano, > Do NOT throw that paper. You did not size incorrectly. And, even if you did > use too little sizing as you may think, you can always use one more coating > if desired. However, I think two coatings errs on too much sizing. > > Yellowing can definitely be from too much gelatin as Loris says. It can also > be from certain hardeners on alkaline paper. > > I cannot see my gelatin sizing once it is soaked into the paper. It is very > hard to see. I have to actually label which side I size to see it. > > Sometimes I can see a bead of glossy gelatin along the edge of the paper. > > I do not use two coats of gelatin when I size, only one. Otherwise it can > get too slick and flaking can occur, but some do use two coats. > > I have also been using Gamblin PVA sizing 1+2 water on Fabriano Artistico > Extra White and it does adequately well. That, too, is very hard to see on > the paper, although it is easier to feel it. It feels a bit smooth and > acrylic-y. > > Chris > >> >> Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that >> I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it >> correctly. >> >> Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden >> the gelatin before making a comparison. >> >> I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a >> comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and >> valleys, but nothing else. >> >> I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only >> thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is >> the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. >> >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was >> sized by someone else. >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper >> I sized on a previous batch. >> >> Feeling frustrated.... >> >> Thanks for any help, >> Luciano >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 20:06:17 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:06:17 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <0FE018B0-9236-49E0-9238-A4EFEDFF60DB@gmail.com> References: <53AD98F64D7849B8897A8B8F591C4BD6@Nuvoletta> <0FE018B0-9236-49E0-9238-A4EFEDFF60DB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0D2EB029F2DF4AA8BB8EE0DE340A05ED@Nuvoletta> That sound encouraging :-) Thanks, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Christina Anderson Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:58 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper That is exactly how I do it, Luciano. If I am doing pieces 11x14 I do tray size (which is a mess) but usually I gelatin size 16x20 with the brush. I do mix my hardener in with the gelatin. Chris Christina Z. Anderson http://christinaZanderson.com/ On Dec 15, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Chris, > > Thanks very much for the suggestions. I have sized only a small batch > so I will harden it as is and try. For the next round I will use only one coat. > My question is: how do you coat the gelatin? I dip a foam brush in the > gelatin, and put a fair amount on the paper, then I smooth it using > horizontal, vertical and diagonal strokes, charging the brush as needed. > > The whole operation lasts just under or slightly more than a minute on > an A4 sheet, and when I am done there is no gelatin dripping. > Basically I use the same technique used for coating the pigmented > gum/dichromate but a lot more relaxed :-) > > Luciano > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On > Behalf Of Christina Anderson > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:36 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > Luciano, > Do NOT throw that paper. You did not size incorrectly. And, even if > you did use too little sizing as you may think, you can always use one > more coating if desired. However, I think two coatings errs on too much sizing. > > Yellowing can definitely be from too much gelatin as Loris says. It > can also be from certain hardeners on alkaline paper. > > I cannot see my gelatin sizing once it is soaked into the paper. It is > very hard to see. I have to actually label which side I size to see it. > > Sometimes I can see a bead of glossy gelatin along the edge of the paper. > > I do not use two coats of gelatin when I size, only one. Otherwise it > can get too slick and flaking can occur, but some do use two coats. > > I have also been using Gamblin PVA sizing 1+2 water on Fabriano > Artistico Extra White and it does adequately well. That, too, is very > hard to see on the paper, although it is easier to feel it. It feels a > bit smooth and acrylic-y. > > Chris > >> >> Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that >> I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it >> correctly. >> >> Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden >> the gelatin before making a comparison. >> >> I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a >> comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and >> valleys, but nothing else. >> >> I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only >> thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else >> is the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. >> >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was >> sized by someone else. >> - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the >> paper I sized on a previous batch. >> >> Feeling frustrated.... >> >> Thanks for any help, >> Luciano >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From workshops at polychrome.nl Sun Dec 15 20:45:06 2013 From: workshops at polychrome.nl (Kees Brandenburg) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:45:06 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69D86CF9-DCC2-4A19-A692-E6D39D47A1DE@polychrome.nl> On 15 dec. 2013, at 18:30, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow (both > Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light table, so my > doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Hi Luciano, You said you sized Fabriano Rosarpina. Did you compare both papers also unsized? The Artistico Traditional White is quiet warm in it's base. Maybe Rosarpina is whiter? regards, kees From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 21:42:01 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:42:01 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <69D86CF9-DCC2-4A19-A692-E6D39D47A1DE@polychrome.nl> References: <69D86CF9-DCC2-4A19-A692-E6D39D47A1DE@polychrome.nl> Message-ID: <355D33B8A4E94D6395C4F716E4D0337B@Nuvoletta> Hi Kees, Rosaspina and Fabriano TW are similar, the main difference I know of is that Rosaspina is 240 or 270 gsm. Unfortunately I do not have any more Fabriano TW and I cannot easily source it here. But I will get some more pads of the different kinds and conduct some serious testing/comparisons. Best Regards, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Kees Brandenburg Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:45 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org list Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper On 15 dec. 2013, at 18:30, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow > (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light > table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Hi Luciano, You said you sized Fabriano Rosarpina. Did you compare both papers also unsized? The Artistico Traditional White is quiet warm in it's base. Maybe Rosarpina is whiter? regards, kees _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 22:27:25 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:27:25 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <355D33B8A4E94D6395C4F716E4D0337B@Nuvoletta> References: <69D86CF9-DCC2-4A19-A692-E6D39D47A1DE@polychrome.nl> <355D33B8A4E94D6395C4F716E4D0337B@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: Hi Luciano, I tried the Fabriano hot-press and also the traditional white--- but no others-- except for the Fabriano Artistico EW soft-press (140 lb), and that really is the only one of those that seems to work so well without additional sizing in my experience. I'm not familiar with the Rosapina. For one-coats, those others worked fine-- it was only with multiple coats that there was any issue--- except with the soft-press, where there were no issues at all after many multiple coats. Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi Kees, > > Rosaspina and Fabriano TW are similar, the main difference I know of is that > Rosaspina is 240 or 270 gsm. Unfortunately I do not have any more Fabriano > TW and I cannot easily source it here. But I will get some more pads of the > different kinds and conduct some serious testing/comparisons. > > Best Regards, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of > Kees Brandenburg > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:45 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org list > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > > On 15 dec. 2013, at 18:30, Luciano Teghillo > wrote: > >> The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow >> (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light >> table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. > > Hi Luciano, > > You said you sized Fabriano Rosarpina. Did you compare both papers also > unsized? The Artistico Traditional White is quiet warm in it's base. Maybe > Rosarpina is whiter? > > regards, > > kees > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 22:38:33 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 23:38:33 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: <69D86CF9-DCC2-4A19-A692-E6D39D47A1DE@polychrome.nl> <355D33B8A4E94D6395C4F716E4D0337B@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <7D07EFFB04294884BAD0B0C9A75B4B5C@Nuvoletta> Hi Diana, I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of calls to source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives heavyweight (I found another possible source here in Italy). Thanks for the all the help. Best Regards, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:27 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hi Luciano, I tried the Fabriano hot-press and also the traditional white--- but no others-- except for the Fabriano Artistico EW soft-press (140 lb), and that really is the only one of those that seems to work so well without additional sizing in my experience. I'm not familiar with the Rosapina. For one-coats, those others worked fine-- it was only with multiple coats that there was any issue--- except with the soft-press, where there were no issues at all after many multiple coats. Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi Kees, > > Rosaspina and Fabriano TW are similar, the main difference I know of > is that Rosaspina is 240 or 270 gsm. Unfortunately I do not have any > more Fabriano TW and I cannot easily source it here. But I will get > some more pads of the different kinds and conduct some serious testing/comparisons. > > Best Regards, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On > Behalf Of Kees Brandenburg > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:45 PM > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org list > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper > > > On 15 dec. 2013, at 18:30, Luciano Teghillo > > wrote: > >> The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow >> (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light >> table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. > > Hi Luciano, > > You said you sized Fabriano Rosarpina. Did you compare both papers > also unsized? The Artistico Traditional White is quiet warm in it's > base. Maybe Rosarpina is whiter? > > regards, > > kees > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From dlhbloomfield at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 22:45:22 2013 From: dlhbloomfield at gmail.com (Diana Bloomfield) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <7D07EFFB04294884BAD0B0C9A75B4B5C@Nuvoletta> References: <69D86CF9-DCC2-4A19-A692-E6D39D47A1DE@polychrome.nl> <355D33B8A4E94D6395C4F716E4D0337B@Nuvoletta> <7D07EFFB04294884BAD0B0C9A75B4B5C@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> Okay; I just wanted to save you some time trying out those other two from Fabriano, because they just don't work like the soft-press does. :) Have fun! Keep us posted. Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi Diana, > > I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of calls to > source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives heavyweight (I found > another possible source here in Italy). > > Thanks for the all the help. > > Best Regards, > Luciano > > > > > -- From rs at silvergrain.org Sun Dec 15 22:52:41 2013 From: rs at silvergrain.org (Ryuji Suzuki) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:52:41 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52AE32B9.3080506@silvergrain.org> Regarding the yellowing of the gelatin, I recall some people reported the same issue before. Those people used formaldehyde or glyoxal as their hardener. These agents were typically used in rather strong concentrations (as they are somewhat ineffective hardeners) and excess agents can get oxidized to yellow the paper. When I used to do these things, I used glutaraldehyde (easiest to buy, fast reaction), bisepoxides (slow reaction but no volatile fume coming out) or s-triazine hardeners (fast reaction, not volatile but nasty chemical to handle). These can be used in much smaller quantities to effectively harden gelatin and I didn't have yellowing problem. If interested, I encourage you to dig up the archive. Also, I found foam brush to be a rather poor tool for coating, as it can nap the surface of the paper. I found a very good tool made for interior wall paints and also posted a report to this list, probably 5 to 10 years ago. -- Ryuji Suzuki "Don't play what's there, play what's not there." (Miles Davis) Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information all of > you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, I am just > getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the usual > mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it with a foam > brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. This > morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I had the > bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of scraps of papers I > have from two previous workshops. > > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow (both > Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light table, so my > doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of course I cannot be > sure because the samples I used for comparison have been tray sized and not > brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin used is similar to Knox > (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used Photographers' Formulary Hard > Gelatin (250 Bloom). > > Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized > paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. > > When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically and > diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with pigment, but > almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking at the surface > from an angle. > > Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not get > into the paper? > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that I > presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden the > gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a comparison) > it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and valleys, but nothing > else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only thing > different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is the same, > done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was sized by > someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper I > sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 22:58:57 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 23:58:57 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> References: <69D86CF9-DCC2-4A19-A692-E6D39D47A1DE@polychrome.nl> <355D33B8A4E94D6395C4F716E4D0337B@Nuvoletta> <7D07EFFB04294884BAD0B0C9A75B4B5C@Nuvoletta> <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> Message-ID: <72648A1E143F4139B8FF470D793F3860@Nuvoletta> I will, and thanks again. Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:45 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Okay; I just wanted to save you some time trying out those other two from Fabriano, because they just don't work like the soft-press does. :) Have fun! Keep us posted. Diana On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > Hi Diana, > > I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of calls > to source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives heavyweight > (I found another possible source here in Italy). > > Thanks for the all the help. > > Best Regards, > Luciano > > > > > -- _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Sun Dec 15 23:04:58 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 00:04:58 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <52AE32B9.3080506@silvergrain.org> References: <52AE32B9.3080506@silvergrain.org> Message-ID: <19995F48943241F0B2D53435713F8DC7@Nuvoletta> Yes, indeed. This is also reported on Christina book mainly regarding Glyoxal. I mixed 4 liters of water with 60ml of 37% formalin (which is less than what is suggested). In any case I do hope to find a paper that allows me to skip all this nasty stuff. I have downloaded the list archives and will try to find the information you are referring to, if anything else for my own culture. I will keep in mind your suggestion regarding the foam brush. All the best, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Ryuji Suzuki Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:53 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Regarding the yellowing of the gelatin, I recall some people reported the same issue before. Those people used formaldehyde or glyoxal as their hardener. These agents were typically used in rather strong concentrations (as they are somewhat ineffective hardeners) and excess agents can get oxidized to yellow the paper. When I used to do these things, I used glutaraldehyde (easiest to buy, fast reaction), bisepoxides (slow reaction but no volatile fume coming out) or s-triazine hardeners (fast reaction, not volatile but nasty chemical to handle). These can be used in much smaller quantities to effectively harden gelatin and I didn't have yellowing problem. If interested, I encourage you to dig up the archive. Also, I found foam brush to be a rather poor tool for coating, as it can nap the surface of the paper. I found a very good tool made for interior wall paints and also posted a report to this list, probably 5 to 10 years ago. -- Ryuji Suzuki "Don't play what's there, play what's not there." (Miles Davis) Luciano Teghillo wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been looming in the back an enjoyed the wealth of information > all of you share. Of course I have not shared nothing because...well, > I am just getting my feet (actually my paper) wet, as you will see. > > I have a question on brushing gelatin on paper. I have prepared the > usual mix of 30% gelatin and kept it at about 45-50 C and brushed it > with a foam brush on the print side of my Fabriano Rosaspina paper. > I brushed on two coats, after letting the first one dry for a day. > This morning I was getting ready to harden the paper in formalin but I > had the bad idea of comparing my sheets of paper with a couple of > scraps of papers I have from two previous workshops. > > The papers I was using as a comparison where noticeably more yellow > (both Fabriano Artistico, Traditional White) when looked on a light > table, so my doubt is that my paper did not receive enough gelatin. Of > course I cannot be sure because the samples I used for comparison have > been tray sized and not brush sized. Also, for least one, the gelatin > used is similar to Knox (Paneangeli for the Italians), while I used > Photographers' Formulary Hard Gelatin (250 Bloom). > > Also when I compare my sized paper against a sheet of the same unsized > paper, I cannot see any discernable difference, even under an 8x loupe. > > When brushing I load the foam brush, and move horizontally, vertically > and diagonally with speed (not quite the same as when you coat with > pigment, but almost), and make sure the brushing is uniform by looking > at the surface from an angle. > > Maybe I brush to fast and "pull" the gelatin too much that it does not > get into the paper? > > Since I have already wasted and entire set of Fabriano Artistico that > I presume I sized incorrectly, I want to make sure this time I do it > correctly. > > Maybe is something totally unrelated to sizing. Maybe I should harden > the gelatin before making a comparison. > > I tried to scan the paper samples (mine and those used as a > comparison) it's useless. You can only see the paper ridges and > valleys, but nothing else. > > I have posted however two images on a previous test I did. The only > thing different between the two tests is the paper. Everything else is > the same, done on the same day, developed for the same time, etc. > > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test01.jpg - This paper was > sized by someone else. > - http://www.lucianoteghillo.com/images/test02.jpg - This is the paper > I sized on a previous batch. > > Feeling frustrated.... > > Thanks for any help, > Luciano > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From emanphoto at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 07:40:26 2013 From: emanphoto at gmail.com (eric nelson) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:40:26 +0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs Message-ID: Kinda cool. http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * -- *Eric Nelson Photography* 086 343 1612 Powerpoint Portfolio Download: http://share.cx.com/zHf94N PDF Portfolio Download: http://share.cx.com/B9CyY6 Website: http://ericnelsonphoto.tumblr.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EricNelsonPhotographyBangkok From gemeentehuis at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 09:01:36 2013 From: gemeentehuis at gmail.com (Bert Kuijer) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:01:36 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is an other new & ongoing Kickstarter project for a Petzval lens, also suitable for medium format. See: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port and http://www.apug.org/forums/forum379/125028-medium-format-petzval-portrait-lens-petzvar-f-3-8-120mm.html It's for a F3.8 120mm Petzval lens for medium format cameras with a Pentacon Six and Hasselblad compatible mount. With an adapter also usable on 135 format cameras. It looks even more interesting to me than the Lomo lens, since it is also usable for medium format cameras. It's not mimicking an old brass lens, but (to me) this design looks even better for this type of cameras than the Lomo lens. What do you think? It's suitable for: Pentacon Six mount cameras, like: - Kiev 88 - Praktisix - Pentacon Six - Exacta 66 - Kiev 60 ( or 6C) - Kiev 88 CM (not older Kiev 88 for its older screw mount??) Hasselblad mount for: - 2000 series cameras - 200 series cameras - NOT: 500 series (due to missing shutter in body and lens??) Also, different types of adapters are available from different manufacturers. They allow the use of P6 lenses on Mamiya 645, Pentax 645 and Contax 645 medium format cameras, Canon EF, Canon FD,Nikon F, Minolta AF, Minolta MD, Contax/Yashica, Pentax K, M42, and Leica R 35 mm cameras, as well as Lumix and Olympus micro 4/3 (m4/3), 4/3 system. Bert from Holland http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl 2013/12/16 eric nelson > Kinda cool. > > http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D > > or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * > > > -- > *Eric Nelson Photography* > 086 343 1612 > Powerpoint Portfolio Download: > http://share.cx.com/zHf94N > PDF Portfolio Download: http://share.cx.com/B9CyY6< > http://tinyurl.com/mz4zs5p> > Website: http://ericnelsonphoto.tumblr.com/ > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EricNelsonPhotographyBangkok > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From laura at lavatop.com Mon Dec 16 09:33:52 2013 From: laura at lavatop.com (Laura V) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:33:52 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <63BC553D-806C-468F-9FBF-50BC2A9CC644@gmail.com> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> <63BC553D-806C-468F-9FBF-50BC2A9CC644@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52AEC900.8030106@lavatop.com> I have a batch of the Daniel Smith Rives heavyweight - I'll also give it a try unsized and report back. I'm out of commission for now though, the fan is out of order in the lighting unit I was using and I'm now working on having my own lighting unit made...hopefully soon. Luciano...when I size my paper, I feel like it's successful when I can't see it at all, for what it's worth! Regards, Laura On 12/15/13 6:26 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > Hi Luciano, > > The Rives "heavyweight" that I mostly use is from Talas, in NYC, and it seems to be 175 gsm. I've also ordered it from Daniel Smith, though, and their "heavyweight" is 280 gsm. From laura at lavatop.com Mon Dec 16 09:39:06 2013 From: laura at lavatop.com (Laura V) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:39:06 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52AECA3A.7040203@lavatop.com> That looks funny ;) Laura On 12/16/13 7:40 AM, eric nelson wrote: > Kinda cool. > http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D > > or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * > > From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Mon Dec 16 10:08:15 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:08:15 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <52AEC900.8030106@lavatop.com> References: <457C5F50-5AF7-4116-9D61-7FC983282CD4@gmail.com> <3E6D5633118F4645A2210BCBDBF19A52@Nuvoletta> <63BC553D-806C-468F-9FBF-50BC2A9CC644@gmail.com> <52AEC900.8030106@lavatop.com> Message-ID: <9F109E2EB2D64ADA889A748E29034EFE@Nuvoletta> Laura, then maybe this time I got it right!! :-) Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Laura V Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 10:34 AM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper I have a batch of the Daniel Smith Rives heavyweight - I'll also give it a try unsized and report back. I'm out of commission for now though, the fan is out of order in the lighting unit I was using and I'm now working on having my own lighting unit made...hopefully soon. Luciano...when I size my paper, I feel like it's successful when I can't see it at all, for what it's worth! Regards, Laura On 12/15/13 6:26 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > Hi Luciano, > > The Rives "heavyweight" that I mostly use is from Talas, in NYC, and it seems to be 175 gsm. I've also ordered it from Daniel Smith, though, and their "heavyweight" is 280 gsm. _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From henry.rattle at ntlworld.com Mon Dec 16 10:11:43 2013 From: henry.rattle at ntlworld.com (Henry Rattle) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:11:43 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> Message-ID: Does anyone know a UK source for this soft-press Fabriano? It seems readily available in the US, but UK suppliers only seem to list hot-press, cold-press and rough. Best wishes Henry On 15/12/2013 22:45, "Diana Bloomfield" wrote: > Okay; I just wanted to save you some time trying out those other two from > Fabriano, because they just don't work like the soft-press does. :) > > Have fun! Keep us posted. > > Diana > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > >> >> Hi Diana, >> >> I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of calls to >> source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives heavyweight (I found >> another possible source here in Italy). >> >> Thanks for the all the help. >> >> Best Regards, >> Luciano >> >> >> >> >> -- > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 10:34:26 2013 From: johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com (John Brewer) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:34:26 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7AF72735-7F77-42CC-BCB1-71FC0271B907@gmail.com> Hi Henry Try http://www.discountart.co.uk/category/fabriano-artistico Maybe post on some of the painting forums. Best wishes John Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Dec 2013, at 10:11 am, Henry Rattle wrote: > > Does anyone know a UK source for this soft-press Fabriano? It seems readily > available in the US, but UK suppliers only seem to list hot-press, > cold-press and rough. > > Best wishes > > Henry > > >> On 15/12/2013 22:45, "Diana Bloomfield" wrote: >> >> Okay; I just wanted to save you some time trying out those other two from >> Fabriano, because they just don't work like the soft-press does. :) >> >> Have fun! Keep us posted. >> >> Diana >> >>> On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Diana, >>> >>> I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of calls to >>> source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives heavyweight (I found >>> another possible source here in Italy). >>> >>> Thanks for the all the help. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Luciano >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From gemeentehuis at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 10:54:14 2013 From: gemeentehuis at gmail.com (Bert Kuijer) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:54:14 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Henry, Maybe this site from http://www.greatart.co.uk will help? They also sell Fabriano Artistico - extra white, a paper I have often used during the courses @ Polychrome (= Kees Brandenburg) like carbon, gum and albumen printing. See: http://www.greatart.co.uk/index.php?stoken=EBCD9A1E&force_sid=224vo415iqhm12ukpalargc2e3&lang=0&cl=antidot_search&searchparam=fabriano+artistico You can use http://www.gerstaecker.de/ to compare prices (incl. shipping costs). I myself ordered two types of Fabriano paper through a local art supplies store. It arrived within 2 weeks for a reasonable price. Good luck hunting Bert from Holland http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl 2013/12/16 Henry Rattle > Does anyone know a UK source for this soft-press Fabriano? It seems readily > available in the US, but UK suppliers only seem to list hot-press, > cold-press and rough. > > Best wishes > > Henry > > > On 15/12/2013 22:45, "Diana Bloomfield" wrote: > > > Okay; I just wanted to save you some time trying out those other two from > > Fabriano, because they just don't work like the soft-press does. :) > > > > Have fun! Keep us posted. > > > > Diana > > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi Diana, > >> > >> I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of calls to > >> source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives heavyweight (I > found > >> another possible source here in Italy). > >> > >> Thanks for the all the help. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Luciano > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 11:20:37 2013 From: johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com (John Brewer) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:20:37 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> Hi Eric Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It isn't a Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements at the back and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo used Kickstarter to raise money, which while it conforms to Kickstarters rules it's a bit immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way. The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century but you can take out baffles of the older lenses. A much better option IMHO is http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port/description Just my tuppence worth. Best wishes John Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Dec 2013, at 07:40 am, eric nelson wrote: > > Kinda cool. > http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D > > or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * > > > -- > *Eric Nelson Photography* > 086 343 1612 > Powerpoint Portfolio Download: > http://share.cx.com/zHf94N > PDF Portfolio Download: http://share.cx.com/B9CyY6 > Website: http://ericnelsonphoto.tumblr.com/ > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EricNelsonPhotographyBangkok > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Mon Dec 16 11:59:24 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:59:24 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> Hello Henry, I have been looking at sourcing this type of paper, and one thing I have been able to confirm is that it is not sold in pads but only in sheets (56x76 cm) of 300 or 40 gsm. So if you find only pads, this is not the soft-press type. Others might work as well, but since Diana was successful with this kind, I want to give it a try first. I have a call into Fabriano this afternoon to verify the part number, and if successful I will post it later on. Best Regards, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Bert Kuijer Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:54 AM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hello Henry, Maybe this site from http://www.greatart.co.uk will help? They also sell Fabriano Artistico - extra white, a paper I have often used during the courses @ Polychrome (= Kees Brandenburg) like carbon, gum and albumen printing. See: http://www.greatart.co.uk/index.php?stoken=EBCD9A1E&force_sid=224vo415iqhm12 ukpalargc2e3&lang=0&cl=antidot_search&searchparam=fabriano+artistico You can use http://www.gerstaecker.de/ to compare prices (incl. shipping costs). I myself ordered two types of Fabriano paper through a local art supplies store. It arrived within 2 weeks for a reasonable price. Good luck hunting Bert from Holland http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl 2013/12/16 Henry Rattle > Does anyone know a UK source for this soft-press Fabriano? It seems > readily available in the US, but UK suppliers only seem to list > hot-press, cold-press and rough. > > Best wishes > > Henry > > > On 15/12/2013 22:45, "Diana Bloomfield" wrote: > > > Okay; I just wanted to save you some time trying out those other two > > from Fabriano, because they just don't work like the soft-press > > does. :) > > > > Have fun! Keep us posted. > > > > Diana > > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi Diana, > >> > >> I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of > >> calls to source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives > >> heavyweight (I > found > >> another possible source here in Italy). > >> > >> Thanks for the all the help. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Luciano > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Mon Dec 16 14:55:42 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:55:42 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> I talked to Fabriano and they confirmed that the soft-pressed (grana dolce if there are other Italians on the list that want to try it) is sold only in sheets (56x76 cm, Fabriano part #69910079) or rolls (100x1400 cm, Fabriano part #, 69914079). I have also found where to source it, so I am an happy camper...for now!! All the best and thanks again for all the replies. Cheers, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Luciano Teghillo Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:59 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hello Henry, I have been looking at sourcing this type of paper, and one thing I have been able to confirm is that it is not sold in pads but only in sheets (56x76 cm) of 300 or 40 gsm. So if you find only pads, this is not the soft-press type. Others might work as well, but since Diana was successful with this kind, I want to give it a try first. I have a call into Fabriano this afternoon to verify the part number, and if successful I will post it later on. Best Regards, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Bert Kuijer Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:54 AM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper Hello Henry, Maybe this site from http://www.greatart.co.uk will help? They also sell Fabriano Artistico - extra white, a paper I have often used during the courses @ Polychrome (= Kees Brandenburg) like carbon, gum and albumen printing. See: http://www.greatart.co.uk/index.php?stoken=EBCD9A1E&force_sid=224vo415iqhm12 ukpalargc2e3&lang=0&cl=antidot_search&searchparam=fabriano+artistico You can use http://www.gerstaecker.de/ to compare prices (incl. shipping costs). I myself ordered two types of Fabriano paper through a local art supplies store. It arrived within 2 weeks for a reasonable price. Good luck hunting Bert from Holland http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl 2013/12/16 Henry Rattle > Does anyone know a UK source for this soft-press Fabriano? It seems > readily available in the US, but UK suppliers only seem to list > hot-press, cold-press and rough. > > Best wishes > > Henry > > > On 15/12/2013 22:45, "Diana Bloomfield" wrote: > > > Okay; I just wanted to save you some time trying out those other two > > from Fabriano, because they just don't work like the soft-press > > does. :) > > > > Have fun! Keep us posted. > > > > Diana > > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Luciano Teghillo wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi Diana, > >> > >> I already have marked in my todo list for tomorrow a couple of > >> calls to source some samples of FA EW soft-press and BFK Rives > >> heavyweight (I > found > >> another possible source here in Italy). > >> > >> Thanks for the all the help. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Luciano > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > > _______________________________________________ > > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From gemeentehuis at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 15:48:10 2013 From: gemeentehuis at gmail.com (Bert Kuijer) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:48:10 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Brushing gelatin on paper In-Reply-To: <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: Hello Luciano and Henri, Fabriano Artistico Extra white - *soft pressed* comes in: - sheets 56 x 76 cm - 300 g/m2 (10 sheets in a pack) - sheets 56 x 76 cm - 640 g/m2 (10 sheets in a pack) - rolls 140 x 1000 cm - 300 g/m2 See: http://www.fabriano.com/p/en/15/artistico_extra_white My Italian is very poorly (okay: non existent), but if I'm right, this is the same info page in Italian: http://www.fabriano.com/p/it/15/artistico_extra_white As far as I can see, the "Artistico *Traditional* White" isn't available as "soft pressed", so make sure you order "Artistico *Extra* White". Bert from Holland 2013/12/16 Luciano Teghillo > > I talked to Fabriano and they confirmed that the soft-pressed (grana dolce > if there are other Italians on the list that want to try it) is sold only > in > sheets (56x76 cm, Fabriano part #69910079) or rolls (100x1400 cm, Fabriano > part #, 69914079). > I have also found where to source it, so I am an happy camper...for now!! > All the best and thanks again for all the replies. > Cheers, > Luciano > > From sanking at clemson.edu Mon Dec 16 16:21:20 2013 From: sanking at clemson.edu (Sandy King) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:21:20 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68B89A56-DCFE-4D64-878A-A0938756A813@clemson.edu> Another glimpse into Hipster Heaven!! Sandy On Dec 16, 2013, at 2:40 AM, eric nelson wrote: > Kinda cool. > http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D > > or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * > > > -- > *Eric Nelson Photography* > 086 343 1612 > Powerpoint Portfolio Download: > http://share.cx.com/zHf94N > PDF Portfolio Download: http://share.cx.com/B9CyY6 > Website: http://ericnelsonphoto.tumblr.com/ > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EricNelsonPhotographyBangkok > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From emanphoto at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 19:23:47 2013 From: emanphoto at gmail.com (eric nelson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 02:23:47 +0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> References: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'd be happy if I could just find the chemistry here to do wet plate! :) On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM, John Brewer < johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eric > > Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It isn't a > Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements at the back > and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo used Kickstarter > to raise money, which while it conforms to Kickstarters rules it's a bit > immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way. > > The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century but > you can take out baffles of the older lenses. > > A much better option IMHO is > http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port/description > > Just my tuppence worth. > > Best wishes > > John > > > > From johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 20:26:04 2013 From: johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com (John Brewer) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:26:04 +0000 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: References: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6E553AC4-27FD-499B-A050-0B58F3B9F986@gmail.com> I know the problem Eric. Kerik came to Scotland to teach a handful of us some years ago. He gave a list of chemicals needed and it took a year to source them all. Because of this I now supply the UK and Europe with most of the chemicals required. Sadly I can't ship to you! Best John Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Dec 2013, at 07:23 pm, eric nelson wrote: > > I'd be happy if I could just find the chemistry here to do wet plate! :) > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM, John Brewer < > johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eric >> >> Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It isn't a >> Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements at the back >> and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo used Kickstarter >> to raise money, which while it conforms to Kickstarters rules it's a bit >> immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way. >> >> The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century but >> you can take out baffles of the older lenses. >> >> A much better option IMHO is >> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port/description >> >> Just my tuppence worth. >> >> Best wishes >> >> John > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From bob at colorfolio.com Tue Dec 17 00:56:55 2013 From: bob at colorfolio.com (Bob Cornelis) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:56:55 -0800 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: new member and a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Loris Thanks for the info - fortunately it turns out my local art supply store stocks the 86 gsm variety! I'll report back on my results and impressions vs cot320. Regards Bob On Dec 14, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Loris Medici wrote: > Welcome Bob, > > ?? > ?I only know one Masa paper (could be minute differences between batches, > I've used three different batches up to date...) and the package states 86 > gsm. In various websites I see weight figures such as 70 gsm, 77 gsm and > 43lb (not sure how that translates; if it's the weight for 500 imperial > size - 22x30" - sheets, that would be equivalent to ~ 92 gsm...) I think > you'll be fine with the heaviest you can find. 70 gsm is significantly > thinner than the 86 gsm I have on hands!!! > > You can use both sides. Naturally, the smooth side will give better image > definition... > > Regards, > Loris. > > > > 2013/12/13 Bob Cornelis > >> ?... >> > I've been using cot320 so far for my palladium prints and like it a lot but >> it is hard to find in stock and, of course, expensive. Been following with >> interest the discussion of Masa paper - my wife is a painter and uses it >> all the time. A friend who has tried it for pt/pd printing says there are >> different kinds and he has not had success with them. So I'm curious to >> find out from those recommending it where they purchased theirs and/or what >> kind of Masa paper it is. Also, do you print on the smooth or rough side? >> >> Also looking for suggestions for best papers for cyanotype - I've used >> cot320, rives bfk a little and have crane platinotype on order. Other >> suggestions? >> ?? >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From bob at colorfolio.com Tue Dec 17 00:58:42 2013 From: bob at colorfolio.com (Bob Cornelis) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:58:42 -0800 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: new member and a question In-Reply-To: <791513DD-DD35-4BFD-BA45-FF7BE08E1F0A@gmail.com> References: <791513DD-DD35-4BFD-BA45-FF7BE08E1F0A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, John - useful info! I had seen the exposure survey before but hadn't before scrolled down to the end of the article to see all the tidbits of information found there. Regards Bob On Dec 14, 2013, at 6:27 AM, John Brewer wrote: > Hi Bob > > Have a look at Jalo's article here http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/paper/tests-in-blue-papers-for-cyanotypes and also here http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/cyanotype/the-big-cyanotype-exposure-survey-results > > All the best > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 13 Dec 2013, at 07:45 pm, Bob Cornelis wrote: >> >> Hello all >> >> Just joined the group and am excited about learning from everyone here! I've owned a custom digital printing lab for the last 15 years (colorfolio.com) but have recently started doing alt process work on my own images - guess I feel need to clear my palette from all the digital-only work I do for others. >> >> I've been doing palladium printing and am starting to venture out into cyanotype and hopefully kallitypes soon. I'm working from digital negs so that part is relatively familiar for me with my background - but I'm new to all the issues related to chemistry, papers, etc on the backend. Using a nuarcs for uv exposure. >> >> I've been using cot320 so far for my palladium prints and like it a lot but it is hard to find in stock and, of course, expensive. Been following with interest the discussion of Masa paper - my wife is a painter and uses it all the time. A friend who has tried it for pt/pd printing says there are different kinds and he has not had success with them. So I'm curious to find out from those recommending it where they purchased theirs and/or what kind of Masa paper it is. Also, do you print on the smooth or rough side? >> >> Also looking for suggestions for best papers for cyanotype - I've used cot320, rives bfk a little and have crane platinotype on order. Other suggestions? >> >> Regards >> Bob Cornelis >> ---------------------- >> 707.824.8910 >> http://www.bobcornelis.com >> http://bobcornelis.wordpress.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From aschmitt at aandy.org Tue Dec 17 01:14:18 2013 From: aschmitt at aandy.org (andy schmitt) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:14:18 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: References: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4aae01cefac5$53390470$f9ab0d50$@aandy.org> Depending on where you are...that;s the easy part... Regards Andy schmitt -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of eric nelson Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 2:24 PM To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs I'd be happy if I could just find the chemistry here to do wet plate! :) On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM, John Brewer < johnbrewerphotography at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eric > > Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It > isn't a Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements > at the back and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo > used Kickstarter to raise money, which while it conforms to > Kickstarters rules it's a bit immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way. > > The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century > but you can take out baffles of the older lenses. > > A much better option IMHO is > http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm > -medium-format-petzval-port/description > > Just my tuppence worth. > > Best wishes > > John > > > > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From christinazanderson at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 16:35:30 2013 From: christinazanderson at gmail.com (Christina Anderson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:35:30 -0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> References: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2E6948C4-CD8A-4D52-B95E-A0F7681D6776@gmail.com> Eric (and John) Thanks for the link! I thought, when I first read the description and it said "$300 will buy you a bit of history" I thought, what a great idea, I'll sport for that. Then when you click on further, it says $499. Then further the lens is now $599! So that is a bit steep for trying something out unless it is really good. So, John, I'm glad you say this, that it isn't really a Petzval. Makes the 100% increase seem not worth it. But if anyone buys it will you let us know if it is worth it? Also, I noticed they got $1,000,000 already and production date for pre-orders is pushed to May or later. By my calculations, at even the $600 price that is making 1666 lenses. Can you IMAGINE??? No wonder production is pushed back. Lenses are such a big deal. I have one lens that has its shortcomings but is really a gorgeous lens--the Nikkor AF micro 60/2.8. It makes such a difference when I use that lens. So I am a sucker for the allure of glass. But still, Petzval...how intriguing an idea....I say as I dug out my Holga lens for my D800 to go out for a shoot... WOOHOO for Christmas break. Chris Christina Z. Anderson http://christinaZanderson.com/ On Dec 16, 2013, at 4:20 AM, John Brewer wrote: > Hi Eric > > Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It isn't a Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements at the back and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo used Kickstarter to raise money, which while it conforms to Kickstarters rules it's a bit immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way. > The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century but you can take out baffles of the older lenses. > A much better option IMHO is http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port/description > Just my tuppence worth. > Best wishes > John > >> On 16 Dec 2013, at 07:40 am, eric nelson wrote: >> Kinda cool. >> http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D >> >> or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * >> -- >> *Eric Nelson Photography* From gemeentehuis at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 16:53:41 2013 From: gemeentehuis at gmail.com (Bert Kuijer) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:53:41 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: <2E6948C4-CD8A-4D52-B95E-A0F7681D6776@gmail.com> References: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> <2E6948C4-CD8A-4D52-B95E-A0F7681D6776@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi evertone, I also think the Lomo lens isn't a real Petzval. That's why I didn't order one. Here are some comments I read about the Lomo lens on the forum that made me wonder about the Lomo design: *"Given that this is made by Zenit / KMZ, this looks an awful lot like the Helios 85mm. The swirly bokeh esp, as well as the size and other. Looks like they're chanigng the coating (maybe just not painting the brass?), and removing the aperture in favour of these weird insets."* *"I have seen this opinion in a numerous discussions. And it makes sense, considering the fact, that Zenit resumed production of the Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.8** lens this summer and it is available now at 500$ with Nikon and Canon mount, as well as original M42 thread. That explains a fairly wide for Petzval design aperture of 2.2 and all other details. Helios is a great lens, derived from Zeiss Biotar , but it is way better corrected than Petzval, and, in fact, is a double-gauss scheme ( Zeiss Planar etc.). If you really want a Lomo lens, I would rather suggest buying a Helios. But, 35 mm is not the right format for Petzval anyway."* But this new project (not Lomo) for a real Petzval type of lens does look good to me: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port I'm considering it since it is a real Petzval design and it will fit a medium format camera. It doesn't look like an old brass lens, but I don't mind that. It will look good on a MF camera anyway. I Might even get me a Hasselblad or Kiev body for it (I have a Bronica SQ-B now) and make some nice analogue negatives for alt-processes, maybe even in the Pictorialism style... I would like to hear what you folks think about this lens. Thanks, Bert from Holland 2013/12/17 Christina Anderson > Eric (and John) > Thanks for the link! I thought, when I first read the description and it > said "$300 will buy you a bit of history" I thought, what a great idea, > I'll sport for that. Then when you click on further, it says $499. Then > further the lens is now $599! So that is a bit steep for trying something > out unless it is really good. So, John, I'm glad you say this, that it > isn't really a Petzval. Makes the 100% increase seem not worth it. But if > anyone buys it will you let us know if it is worth it? > > Also, I noticed they got $1,000,000 already and production date for > pre-orders is pushed to May or later. By my calculations, at even the $600 > price that is making 1666 lenses. Can you IMAGINE??? No wonder production > is pushed back. > > Lenses are such a big deal. I have one lens that has its shortcomings but > is really a gorgeous lens--the Nikkor AF micro 60/2.8. It makes such a > difference when I use that lens. So I am a sucker for the allure of glass. > > But still, Petzval...how intriguing an idea....I say as I dug out my Holga > lens for my D800 to go out for a shoot... > > WOOHOO for Christmas break. > > Chris > > Christina Z. Anderson > http://christinaZanderson.com/ > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 4:20 AM, John Brewer wrote: > > > Hi Eric > > > > Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It isn't > a Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements at the back > and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo used Kickstarter > to raise money, which while it conforms to Kickstarters rules it's a bit > immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way. > > The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century but > you can take out baffles of the older lenses. > > A much better option IMHO is > http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port/description > > Just my tuppence worth. > > Best wishes > > John > > > >> On 16 Dec 2013, at 07:40 am, eric nelson wrote: > >> Kinda cool. > >> > http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D > >> > >> or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * > >> -- > >> *Eric Nelson Photography* > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From tom at sobota.net Tue Dec 17 17:19:12 2013 From: tom at sobota.net (Tomas Sobota) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:19:12 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs In-Reply-To: <2E6948C4-CD8A-4D52-B95E-A0F7681D6776@gmail.com> References: <2909E0EE-F0FE-4061-84FF-63B492B92725@gmail.com> <2E6948C4-CD8A-4D52-B95E-A0F7681D6776@gmail.com> Message-ID: Christina, The actual maker of this lens is the Krasnogorsk factory near Moscow. They were the builders of the Zorki and Zenith cameras among others, as well as dozens of Russian lens designs. I bet that for these guys 1666 lenses, as you say, is not such a large batch. They always had a problem with quality control, but I guess that nobody will care too much about quality in these Petzvals. I won't be buying one of these. On the one hand I already have three real Petzvals for my large format cameras, and on the other hand I agree with John Brewer in that this is a somewhat spurious business on the part of Lomography. What is news for me is that these lenses are not Petzvals. Is that so? Is there a diagram available somewhere to compare? Oh yes, and the bokeh of the images that these lenses make is dreadful. For my taste, that is. Tom On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Christina Anderson < christinazanderson at gmail.com> wrote: > Eric (and John) > Thanks for the link! I thought, when I first read the description and it > said "$300 will buy you a bit of history" I thought, what a great idea, > I'll sport for that. Then when you click on further, it says $499. Then > further the lens is now $599! So that is a bit steep for trying something > out unless it is really good. So, John, I'm glad you say this, that it > isn't really a Petzval. Makes the 100% increase seem not worth it. But if > anyone buys it will you let us know if it is worth it? > > Also, I noticed they got $1,000,000 already and production date for > pre-orders is pushed to May or later. By my calculations, at even the $600 > price that is making 1666 lenses. Can you IMAGINE??? No wonder production > is pushed back. > > Lenses are such a big deal. I have one lens that has its shortcomings but > is really a gorgeous lens--the Nikkor AF micro 60/2.8. It makes such a > difference when I use that lens. So I am a sucker for the allure of glass. > > But still, Petzval...how intriguing an idea....I say as I dug out my Holga > lens for my D800 to go out for a shoot... > > WOOHOO for Christmas break. > > Chris > > Christina Z. Anderson > http://christinaZanderson.com/ > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 4:20 AM, John Brewer wrote: > > > Hi Eric > > > > Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It isn't > a Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements at the back > and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo used Kickstarter > to raise money, which while it conforms to Kickstarters rules it's a bit > immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way. > > The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century but > you can take out baffles of the older lenses. > > A much better option IMHO is > http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port/description > > Just my tuppence worth. > > Best wishes > > John > > > >> On 16 Dec 2013, at 07:40 am, eric nelson wrote: > >> Kinda cool. > >> > http://petapixel.com/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-19th-century-petzval-lens-for-canon-and-nikon-slrs/?fb_action_ids=603949566318750&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B177449689104403%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D > >> > >> or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn * > >> -- > >> *Eric Nelson Photography* > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From emanphoto at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 08:47:36 2013 From: emanphoto at gmail.com (eric nelson) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:47:36 +0700 Subject: [Alt-photo] Washi Film Message-ID: "Washi Film is a black and white photographic film developed from traditional paper, Washi. Made for centuries in Japan, this paper combines just the right physical properties with a unique aesthetic: strong, flexible and transparent, Washi is the ideal medium for creating a hand-crafted photographic film. Easy to handle and develop, Washi Film is available in conventional photographic formats: 120, 620, 127 and 4x5. It is processed in normal black and white paper developer, and the negative can then either be scanned or printed using an enlarger. Washi Film is orthochromatic: sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum while being relatively insensitive to the red. This means that Washi Film can be handled under a red safelight (> 545nm). Although we take great care in the manufacture of Washi Film, the process we use introduces a certain amount of natural variation into each roll or sheet. This contributes to the films unique aesthetic. If you are unhappy with the film for any reason please get in touch and we will do our best to help. " http://lomig.fr/about/index-en.html From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Wed Dec 18 14:57:26 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:57:26 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] GUM - Wash paper after hardening In-Reply-To: <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <81AA38D44670483398F27A6D0B348422@Nuvoletta> Hello All, I have one more doubt about paper preparation. After the gelatin sized paper has been hardened with formalin and dried, should I wash the paper in water (probably running water)? Thanks, Luciano PS. the Fabriano soft-pressed has been shipped and should be here tomorrow. Hope to have some news soon. From mail at loris.medici.name Wed Dec 18 16:02:16 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:02:16 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening In-Reply-To: <81AA38D44670483398F27A6D0B348422@Nuvoletta> References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> <81AA38D44670483398F27A6D0B348422@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: No need to wash after formalin hardening. Formalin evaporates readily. Could be different for other kinds of hardeners... Regards, Loris. P.S. Mind that I use very little formalin, 0.5ml per 100ml 3% gelatin solution. 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo > > Hello All, > > I have one more doubt about paper preparation. > After the gelatin sized paper has been hardened with formalin and dried, > should I wash the paper in water (probably running water)? > > > Thanks, > Luciano > > PS. the Fabriano soft-pressed has been shipped and should be here tomorrow. > Hope to have some news soon. > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Wed Dec 18 16:06:54 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:06:54 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening In-Reply-To: References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> <81AA38D44670483398F27A6D0B348422@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <1C06AE55F35C4AD49161F36C923A343B@Nuvoletta> Thanks. I do a separate path and use 60ml 37% formalin in 4 liters of water. Seems like I could use less formalin. What do you think? Regards, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Loris Medici Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:02 PM To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening No need to wash after formalin hardening. Formalin evaporates readily. Could be different for other kinds of hardeners... Regards, Loris. P.S. Mind that I use very little formalin, 0.5ml per 100ml 3% gelatin solution. 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo > > Hello All, > > I have one more doubt about paper preparation. > After the gelatin sized paper has been hardened with formalin and > dried, should I wash the paper in water (probably running water)? > > > Thanks, > Luciano > > PS. the Fabriano soft-pressed has been shipped and should be here tomorrow. > Hope to have some news soon. > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From mail at loris.medici.name Wed Dec 18 16:15:15 2013 From: mail at loris.medici.name (Loris Medici) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:15:15 +0200 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening In-Reply-To: <1C06AE55F35C4AD49161F36C923A343B@Nuvoletta> References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> <81AA38D44670483398F27A6D0B348422@Nuvoletta> <1C06AE55F35C4AD49161F36C923A343B@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: I don't know, I personally don't like the idea of a separate hardening bath(*), therefore never used one. (*) Because: - I'm not sure about the stability of large diluted formalin baths, - You have to deal with considerably more formalin, - It's a two steps process taking more time than I would like to spend. Good luck with FAEW/SP, it's a very nice paper. Regards, Loris. 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo > > Thanks. I do a separate path and use 60ml 37% formalin in 4 liters of > water. > Seems like I could use less formalin. What do you think? > > Regards, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf > Of > Loris Medici > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:02 PM > To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening > > No need to wash after formalin hardening. Formalin evaporates readily. > Could be different for other kinds of hardeners... > > Regards, > Loris. > > P.S. Mind that I use very little formalin, 0.5ml per 100ml 3% gelatin > solution. > > > 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo > > > > > Hello All, > > > > I have one more doubt about paper preparation. > > After the gelatin sized paper has been hardened with formalin and > > dried, should I wash the paper in water (probably running water)? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Luciano > > > > PS. the Fabriano soft-pressed has been shipped and should be here > tomorrow. > > Hope to have some news soon. > From luciano at lucianoteghillo.com Wed Dec 18 16:23:39 2013 From: luciano at lucianoteghillo.com (Luciano Teghillo) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:23:39 +0100 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening In-Reply-To: References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> <81AA38D44670483398F27A6D0B348422@Nuvoletta> <1C06AE55F35C4AD49161F36C923A343B@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: <7320E422C37A466AA5926574FE913E33@Nuvoletta> Yes, I do hope that I do not have to size/harden anymore but I have 5 large sheets (70x100) of Fabriano Rosaspina that need to be used. Maybe I could keep them and use them with Cyanotype. Will see... Regards, Luciano -----Original Message----- From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Loris Medici Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:15 PM To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening I don't know, I personally don't like the idea of a separate hardening bath(*), therefore never used one. (*) Because: - I'm not sure about the stability of large diluted formalin baths, - You have to deal with considerably more formalin, - It's a two steps process taking more time than I would like to spend. Good luck with FAEW/SP, it's a very nice paper. Regards, Loris. 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo > > Thanks. I do a separate path and use 60ml 37% formalin in 4 liters of > water. > Seems like I could use less formalin. What do you think? > > Regards, > Luciano > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On > Behalf Of Loris Medici > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:02 PM > To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening > > No need to wash after formalin hardening. Formalin evaporates readily. > Could be different for other kinds of hardeners... > > Regards, > Loris. > > P.S. Mind that I use very little formalin, 0.5ml per 100ml 3% gelatin > solution. > > > 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo > > > > > Hello All, > > > > I have one more doubt about paper preparation. > > After the gelatin sized paper has been hardened with formalin and > > dried, should I wash the paper in water (probably running water)? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Luciano > > > > PS. the Fabriano soft-pressed has been shipped and should be here > tomorrow. > > Hope to have some news soon. > _______________________________________________ Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From marekmatusz at hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 03:32:28 2013 From: marekmatusz at hotmail.com (Marek Matusz) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:32:28 -0800 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening In-Reply-To: <7320E422C37A466AA5926574FE913E33@Nuvoletta> References: <2083F2AF-4044-49A6-AE4C-775146481C12@gmail.com> <4698CA5959A74CB0B707533BD1D72895@Nuvoletta> <51F278E2041A450D88EDA838584EF943@Nuvoletta> <81AA38D44670483398F27A6D0B348422@Nuvoletta> <1C06AE55F35C4AD49161F36C923A343B@Nuvoletta> <7320E422C37A466AA5926574FE913E33@Nuvoletta> Message-ID: Luciano I don't do much gelatin sizing since I started using pva. I also never used formaldehyde. The glyoxal hardened gelatin would frequently turn yellow for me but a brief wash next day would always clear it. Marek Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 18, 2013, at 8:26 AM, "Luciano Teghillo" wrote: > > > Yes, I do hope that I do not have to size/harden anymore but I have 5 large > sheets (70x100) of Fabriano Rosaspina that need to be used. Maybe I could > keep them and use them with Cyanotype. Will see... > > Regards, > Luciano > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of > Loris Medici > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:15 PM > To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list > Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening > > I don't know, I personally don't like the idea of a separate hardening > bath(*), therefore never used one. > > (*) Because: > > - I'm not sure about the stability of large diluted formalin baths, > - You have to deal with considerably more formalin, > - It's a two steps process taking more time than I would like to spend. > > Good luck with FAEW/SP, it's a very nice paper. > > Regards, > Loris. > > > 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo > >> >> Thanks. I do a separate path and use 60ml 37% formalin in 4 liters of >> water. >> Seems like I could use less formalin. What do you think? >> >> Regards, >> Luciano >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org >> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On >> Behalf Of Loris Medici >> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:02 PM >> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list >> Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: GUM - Wash paper after hardening >> >> No need to wash after formalin hardening. Formalin evaporates readily. >> Could be different for other kinds of hardeners... >> >> Regards, >> Loris. >> >> P.S. Mind that I use very little formalin, 0.5ml per 100ml 3% gelatin >> solution. >> >> >> 2013/12/18 Luciano Teghillo >> >>> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> I have one more doubt about paper preparation. >>> After the gelatin sized paper has been hardened with formalin and >>> dried, should I wash the paper in water (probably running water)? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Luciano >>> >>> PS. the Fabriano soft-pressed has been shipped and should be here >> tomorrow. >>> Hope to have some news soon. > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org From bob at colorfolio.com Sat Dec 21 00:41:15 2013 From: bob at colorfolio.com (Bob Cornelis) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:41:15 -0800 Subject: [Alt-photo] toning kallitypes Message-ID: <05A8959B-1CF9-45C6-88FD-A0B37BE42E81@colorfolio.com> I am planning on trying some kallitype printing and am faced for the first time with some decisions about toning. So far I've just been doing palladium printing and have not done any toning. I've read a number of books on the subject but one topic that is hinted at but I haven't seen spelled out is long term care/use of the toner solution you make. Is the toner reusable and, if so, for how long and how does one tell if and when it is exhausted? I am interested in either gold or platinum toning and both materials are expensive. So it would be great if I can use the toner solution on a large # of prints. For example, Jill Enfield recommends a mixture of 1 liter distilled water, 5g citric acid and 5ml platinum - any thoughts on how many prints at 8x10 this should tone? Any advice or suggestions is appreciated! Bob From sanking at clemson.edu Sat Dec 21 00:59:47 2013 From: sanking at clemson.edu (Sandy King) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:59:47 -0500 Subject: [Alt-photo] Re: toning kallitypes In-Reply-To: <05A8959B-1CF9-45C6-88FD-A0B37BE42E81@colorfolio.com> References: <05A8959B-1CF9-45C6-88FD-A0B37BE42E81@colorfolio.com> Message-ID: <2C15231C-1FC2-4658-8B44-81159203D24B@clemson.edu> The toner can be reused, but each time you use it it becomes weaker, and toning takes longer. I would recommend instead of reusing it you use one-shot and discard. This will give greater consistency, and may actually be more efficient in terms of cost. To use one-shot you will need a flat bottom tray. How much you will need to tone a print depends on the image. For an 8X10 print try about 25 ml of the toner solution. If the shadows don't tone add more of the solution. Images with a lot of shadow density need more toner than those that have mainly upper mid-tone and highlights. I have an article on kallitype at http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/kallitypes/the-kallitype-process There is some information on toning that you may find interesting. Sandy On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Bob Cornelis wrote: > I am planning on trying some kallitype printing and am faced for the first time with some decisions about toning. So far I've just been doing palladium printing and have not done any toning. I've read a number of books on the subject but one topic that is hinted at but I haven't seen spelled out is long term care/use of the toner solution you make. > > Is the toner reusable and, if so, for how long and how does one tell if and when it is exhausted? I am interested in either gold or platinum toning and both materials are expensive. So it would be great if I can use the toner solution on a large # of prints. For example, Jill Enfield recommends a mixture of 1 liter distilled water, 5g citric acid and 5ml platinum - any thoughts on how many prints at 8x10 this should tone? > > Any advice or suggestions is appreciated! > > Bob > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org