Re: [Fwd: Wet & Dry Exposure]


Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:30:38 -0700


Eric;

Although the Ziatype is very humidity dependent and you cold dry the paper
down until it has 'just the right amount' of moisture, where a gloved finger
run over the surface does not snag, the Ziatype can be mastered and
controlled just as well as the DOP methods. It is all a matter of some
training of your senses and a slight learning curve. For me, I am coming
the opposite way, from first trying the Ziatype and now the DOP methods.
Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Neither is better or worse.
They are just different ways to get a finished print. Invest some time with
the Zia and then see what you think before you totally dismiss it as some
new hype technique. Actually it is about 100 years old.

Gary Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Wet & Dry Exposure]

> "Jeffrey D. Mathias" wrote:
>
> > Although the best thing
> > would be for you to come visit and observe what I am doing.
>
> A visit would be great, I however, can not make it now or in the short
term.
>
> > If the
> > paper is going to hold the humidity that well, then it's probably going
> > to hold it away from the coating on the surface as well. I suspect that
> > the RH of the coating is responding to a controlled value reproducibly
> > even though that value is not known.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > AGAIN, I HAVE NO EQUIPMENT TO MEASURE IT.
>
> Neither I, that is why I allow it sit in my cool humidity box for a 1/2
hour after
> crispy dry, and that is why I crisp it dry and bring it back to a wetness
level in
> my other box. It uses a fan and wick type humidifier; rheostat and three
speed fan.
>
> > > Others may disagree with me, but its the
> > > water content that is enabling the print out, and must be considered
an
> > > important component that needs controls.
> >
> > But, this is one of the things I noticed as well. With the only
> > difference being RH, the "wet" one had a very dark, black, very high
> > contrast printout. It is important. The question is how much control.
> > The more important question is can the "wet" technique be controlled to
> > not produce the solarization effect and still keep the dramatic high
> > contrast printout???
>
> I suspect that we both control our procedures very well. I watched bits
of a
> 20/20 program last night on memory and the fast pace of technology in
modern
> gadgets. Mostly a fluff program which is why I channel hopped away, but
it did have
> a segment on a cook and her ability to internally time several different
dishes at
> once. I have no doubt that you can judge the "readiness" of a piece of
coated
> paper, but some measurement in minutes really helps me compare what I do
to what you
> do.
>
> I still haven't printed out your concentration test on AFO et al, but I
don't see
> any reason to use any of Dick's solutions as they were. In Ware's paper
as with my
> own experience, a coated humidified piece is no good after 2 hours. I
never go
> past 1 hour. As for the range, Ware shows a range from about 30% to 70%
with little
> change in maximum density. There is however, quite a change in print
quality
> throughout that range due to relative speed differences between platinum
and
> palladium.
>
> I have yet to solarize a print with my current set up. The last and only
solarized
> print that I had, was from a poorly made enlarged negative that I did in a
borrowed
> darkroom and printed on an unfamiliar light. The negative has since been
redone.
>
> This is the very thing, control of humidity, that has kept me away from
the term
> Ziatype for POP printing. I might go with Ziahype.
>
> I did also notice that Artcraft is selling powdered ferric. I thought
that he was
> only selling liquid. I am going to get some and do some test.
> --
> 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 - 21:40:39