Re: Another Registration Method for Gums

Risa S. Horowitz (babbleon@terraport.net)
Mon, 6 May 1996 18:43:34 -0400

>
>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.

hey there,
I'm pretty careful to a) use the smallest pieces of tape as possible to hold
the neg, and b) the place them differently each time. Even so, the exposures
seem to be sufficient to blend the edges - i've never gotten a pure white
marking. someone said something about perfection at some point - I like the
idea of using ruby red and targets, kind of like the way I like seeing the
targets in some magazines and posters, I don't know, just my personal
curiosity about method. My negs always have around a 1/4 inch border around
them (from easel), so the end procuct has a white border around it, and then
the brushed edges.
I don't mind seeing either brush marked borders, ruby targets, vague tape
marks or whatever: so long as none of these affects the image itself. I
spend far too much time with kodak red opaque paint and my etching needle to
put up with internal spotting.

ok
Risa :)

>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
>
>