[Alt-photo] Re: Stochastic screening in Gum

[Peter Friedrichsen]

Hi Edward,

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't intend to do any photogravure work in the near term, but will give it a go with gum when I can find a day or two to spare. 

Peter Friedrichsen




> On Dec 30, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Edward Draper <ercdraper at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Peter,
> 
> I've tried double and single exposure in both
> 
> Gum works with the scholastic 'noise' in the negative - so single exposure
> 
> But photogravure works best with a separate stochastic exposure - so double exposure
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> 
> Edward
> 
> 
> 
> Working on the go on a smart-phone keyboard
> 
> Forgive minor errors, please
> 
> 
>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 16:30, Peter Friedrichsen <pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Edward,
>> 
>> If I am reading you correctly, you apply a double exposure in photogravure but not gum? Are you  using any screening with gum? Perhaps you could clarify this for me?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Peter Friedrichsen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 30, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Edward Draper <ercdraper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Peter,
>>> 
>>> Can I add my tuppence worth?
>>> 
>>> I've always added some form of 'noise' to my negatives - I use Photoshop and add it in a variety of ways
>>> 
>>> An example can be seen on my Etsy shop
>>> 
>>> With a lot of success - at least I am extremely happy with the results (as are my customers)
>>> 
>>> https://www.etsy.com/listing/92397855/inner-smile-a-collectable-handmade
>>> 
>>> I have recently been messing with photogravure - and the same 'dither' does not work nearly as well
>>> 
>>> I have found a stochastic 'aquatint' screen exposed immediately before a second exposure with the negative works well
>>> 
>>> Though I don't like the 'industrial' feel I get when I do this with gum. - it looks fake and as if it was a commercially-produced poster
>>> 
>>> Hope this is of interest,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Edward
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Working on the go on a smart-phone keyboard
>>> 
>>> Forgive minor errors, please
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 9 Dec 2013, at 00:35, Peter Friedrichsen <pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>