> But with the right combination of exposure and sensitiser the gum
should be hard > enough to achieve the same effects as 'automatic'
development with brush or > other forms of mechanical development.
You said:
Not true. Terry, you are still in deep denial about the difference between
"automatic" development and development by abrasion.
If you rub, wipe, swab, hose, spray or brush a print on smooth paper, you
wipe off your high tones. If you do it on rough paper, you lose the smooth
velvety tones of auto development -- getting a grainy or textured effect.
While you can no doubt mitigate that graininess by subsequent
superimposed exposures, that's a different operation.
Judy, it is true, if you get the exposure right. I have been doing it for years.
You said:
Because the modern books tell them to. Why is that? Who knows? The
practice may have begun during the period of exposure by sun. Since the
larger amount of dichromate is faster, the print could be made before
conditions changed, or on cloudy days...
I used to find that the cat liked to sleep on exposures in the sun and rain
drops would form lots of pretty lenses. That is why I got a lamp. As you know
Focal Press consider that with the Scopick and the Gum Oil and the alternative
light book, the market is saturated. Any comments ?
Terry