From: TERRY KING, 101522,2625
TO: Peter Marshall, INTERNET:petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk
DATE: 23/05/96 12:13
RE: Copy of: Re: Copy of: Message from Internet
>Peter
You wrote in relation to double coating:
> It wasn't the conclusion I wanted either. But inescapable from the
> experiments. The print you gave me back recently was double coated print -
> as also the ones in the 150 years show. My evalution of the results was that
> the double coating adds a richness in the shadow areas that is just not
> quiate there in the single coated prints - though they may oatherwise be
> fine prints. For subjects where the mid-tones are the really important
> aspect there may be little difference.
The point is that further experience showed that by a combination of sizing,
humidification and choice of paper and sensitiser, it is possible to get rich
detailed shadows and subtle gradations in the highlights from a single coat.
If others' preference is for double coating on different papers or for machine
coated papers, that is their choice.
>
> This was another reason for moving to machine coated paper - as well as
> cutting hassle it cut costs, though the virtually zero wastage is the main
> factor here. I never got hand coating to the level wehre I could (double)
> coat 10 sheets and consistently get 10 useable prints.
With a hake brush and the right paper I am sure, Peter, that your hit rate would
be 100 %.
>
> It is interesting to see the quite different volumes that seem to be used to
> coat paper - which may go some way to explaining the differences some of us
> have over single/double coating. The amounts I used are similar to the
> figures Terry gives.
>
Sizing appears to be the significant factor.
Terry king