Does that mean you leave the acetate over the image area? If so, I know=20
it cuts down on the exposure, which may not matter, but I suspect it can=20
to some extent degrade the image (in the way "no-glare" glass degrades=20
an image tho much less so of course). My thought is that it could also=20
alter the "curve," tho it's true that could be for the better!
> square I apply a crosshair registration mark (tape variety though transfe=
r
> type can work with a coating of rubber cement) , cocking one at 45=B0 to =
avoid
> the cute upside down effect. =20
I've never bought rubylith, but am still using a supply I picked up on=20
the street (well, it happened). Is it expensive? Do you have to cut a new=
=20
mask for each negative, or are your sizes fairly standard?
> The registration marks are applied to the sized paper over a light box an=
d
> because I mask off the image area each time I coat, the crosshairs are
You say you mask off the image area to coat ... How? I cut an opening the
size I need in a piece of corrugated cardboard, and simply tape that to my
work table glass in position over the paper. This works well because it
gives the kind of rough edge I want -- but maybe there's something better
out there? (My negatives tend to be all different sizes, so I have a wall
full of these "frames" hanging up.)
> clearly visable. The coated paper is also aligned over a light box with a
> sheet of ruby lith taped to the box to block the image area. Haven't had=
any
> problems from light box exposure syndrome. I use Scotch Drafting Tape #23=
0 to
> attach the flat to the paper, no marks, no tearing.=20
Yes, and when we forget and use regular masking, we nearly always pay the
price (including the residual stickum, which gets onto other negatives).
But honest, the light box light will NOT affect your print thru the paper.=
=20
In fact even directly under the UV exposure light, exposure through the bac=
k
of paper requires almost 100% of your original thru-the-negative time
to have an effect -- and that's for thin paper.=20
And speaking of the masking effect of masking tape, as Risa was, if I
understand her response correctly, the tape goes in a different place for
each of many exposures so the total effect is negligible. (Is that it?) I
cannot picture any other circumstance in which a piece of masking tape
would not leave paper white with the exposure she describes.
In fact I myself just ruined an otherwise fine & dandy print by carelessly
leaving a piece of tape in the image area; true this is "one-coat" gum,
but it left a great big totally blank oblong. I'm not one of those
perfectionist everything-perfect printers like some of the real (platinum!)=
=20
pros out there, but this was destruction beyond the pale, so to speak, even=
=20
for me.=20
One other thing -- you don't necessarily have to use rubylith for holding
register marks. It won't block out the light, but you can simply scotch
tape a strip of mylar, acetate, or even of bleached out spoiled negative
onto one or more sides of the negative and stick (or draw) the crosshairs
onto them.=20
I daresay rubylith is neater, tho. How wide a border do you leave, Carol?=
=20
Judy