Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:33:37 -0500 (EST)
I'm cleaning up my overstuffed mailbox in honor of the approaching
millennium, and came across this:
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/20/98, PM 03:41:34, jseigel@panix.com writes:
> <<I recently used a couple of sheets of paper I'd sized with 6% Knox gelatin
> a couple of years ago. It wasn't great at the time, but it seemed to work
> wonderfully with the digital negatives.
>
> Hi Judy,
>
> I am curious about whether it works wonderfully with digital negatives only or
> both with digital and contone negatives.
>
> >> thanks in advance for any comments,>>
>
> Well, since you said *any* comment, I will guess a few things, and sorry in
> advance if I am wrong. :) I have not used 6% gelatine. I go even lesser
> than the usual recommendation amount. I used only 1 - 1.5% for the reason that
> gelatine will set as long as it is 1% or above and for an unproved reasoning
> that I want a very thin coat so that the tooth is not covered. The 1% to 1.5%
> works very well for my multicoat gum.
Dave, in my experience less than 3% gelatine isn't a good idea for sizing
for gum. It probably varies with the paper, how well sized it is to start
with, or whatever, but when I first began teaching, students had trouble
with flecks in their gum prints. Panicked that I would be found out for
not knowing what I was doing, I went home & tested all week, beginning
with the size in all variations I could think of. Finally I tried one at
3/4 strength, and the print flecked furiously.
We clarified size strength (to 28 grams per liter, not 20 as some had
used); end of flecks -- at that time. However, since then I've found that
other abuse of size can cause flecking -- rotten gelatin, boiled gelatin,
etc.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:42