Eric Neilsen (e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:17:39 -0500
Carl Fransman wrote:
> Witto,
>
> 1- thanks a million for providing us with the necessary chemicals when in
> need. At least, we had some prints to show at the APIS
>
> 2- To answer your question; we managed to get 1.96 (pure Pt, dop, double
> coating, brush development) but had other (minor) problems such as less
> even image in the very deep densities than i.e. many other images I saw
> at APIS... You should also know that if your prints are not neutral in
> color, the density reading may be somewhat off... In the end, the eye
> decides if the print looks good or not. Zia seems to strand around 1.6
> with good consistent results... Also bear in mind that densitometers will
> easile read .1 difference! Check with a calibrated Stouffer or equivalent.
>
Here is another note. The 1.5 was for platinum/palladium DOP with a 50/50 mix
on Risings Gallery 100 and tested several years back, 1994 or 95. As Jeffrey
and both Carls have mentioned the eye does decide what looks good. The data
that I posted was taken several years back when some else on the list, i think
David Fokos, had posted something about double coating and his procedure for
platine. I do not regularly read densities off prints.
> Seems that when the paper is too humid (>60%), problems can arise. This
> is often a problem in the low countries.
>
Do you mean coastal cites?
-- Eric J. Neilsen 4101 Commerce Street, Suite #9 Dallas, TX 75226 214-827-8301 http://home.att.net/~e.neilsen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:38