>Guys, I got to tell you that the question of tissue thickeness is a lot
>more interesting than you are letting on. The amount of pigment in the
>gelatin,combined with the quanity of pigmented used to coat a specific
>area, has a very important relationship on, a) image contrast, and b)
>relief characteristics of the final image. To understand this, draw a cross
>section of two pigment tissue, one very thick and lightly pigmented,
>another thin and highly pigmented, and run through your mind what will
>happen with these two tissues, given an equal strength dichromate
>sensitizer, and the same exposure to light.
>
Absolutely,
I am finding out that their are many more variables in experimenting with
carbon then their are in Gum. Looking at your cross sections, If I assume
that the pigment has a considerable effect in masking the penetration of
the light, then I would expect high contrast and low relief when alot of
pigment is used. Conversly I would expect a high profile and lower contrast
with less pigment. Therefore th minimum thickness depends on the depth of
penetration of the light. Although if everything was linear I would expect
that since the gelatin is thicker with the light pigment it might look very
similar. Is this analysis correct ??
My original question was concerned more with the contradictions in a number
of articles/books I have read, then the *ideal* thickness. In answer to your
question the thickness of coating can be measured with a micrometer which is
accurate to .0005 (half a thousandth) or a top quality digital vernier caliper
which has similar accuracy.
Thanks for adding to my insight in this process.
Cheers
Al