>Having to date made exactly two (2) tri-color gums, I comment rather
>tentatively. But print #2 was cyan/magenta/yellow and tho it wasn't
>perfect, the yellow wasn't a problem &, considering that I hadn't made a
>test of any kind, I was thrilled.
>
>The yellow was Rowney Permanent Yellow. The brochure from Rowney does not
>state the pigment (grrrrr!), but lists it as "transparent." It also lists
>Aureolin, Lemon Yellow and Indian Yellow as transparent, tho, in my
"transparent" is a relative term. Also, the finer the grind, the more
transparent a pigment gets.
>ignorance perhaps, I didn't see anything wrong with the Permanent Yellow.
>But didn't someone mention Hansa yellow as a good process yellow? And
There is Hansa and there is Hansa and...
>there's a new synthetic one, a D-word as I recall.
>
>However, I wonder if having used a digital negative made a difference.
>Theoretically, the spots of yellow might not be entirely in the same place
>as the dots of red & blue -- or at least not all the same places --
>whereas in continuous tone the tone areas would be much more contiguous --
>maybe. Then again, Carson, your disaster gravure would have been in dots,
>too, wouldn't it?
Photogravure is different from other processes as the *thickness* of the
ink is what changes the density of the print and not the size of the dot as
in offset lithography. It's also why commercial gravure is a three-color
process instead of offset which is usually 3 + black (although sometimes 5
or 6 colors are involved, e.g., Callaway editions for Knopf)
It is also why a true three-color carbon print from continuous tone negs
gives super blacks from three colors while screen systems need a separate
black for the same results.
Luis Nadeau
awef6t@mis.ca
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.mi.net/dialin/awef6t/