Matt Baker (Matthew.H.Baker@drexel.edu)
Mon, 02 Aug 1999 16:59:17 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 15:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
>Subject: Re: Rethinking: RC peel appeal
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
>
>
>
>On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Melvin Dorin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To this discussion on peeled RC, I would like to add that I (last week)
>> made an enlarged neg from a "bulletproof" pyro developed neg that got away
>> from me. This "bulletproof" neg would not print for Pd/Pt, but printed for
>> Ag (after a Grade 0 session) on Ilford Multi III RC. Using the Ag positive,
>> I exposed a sheet of Agfa N31p as a contact neg. The results were quite
>> good, and the resulting Pd print was quite pleasing. Very small loss of
>> sharpness--almost unnoticed. This saved the negative, as far as I was
>> concerned, and I didn't peel anything. Exposing through the RC print took
>> 15 seconds using an enlarger source as the light with full aperture on the
>> lens.
>
>
>Wow, that really must have been a dense negative! I often contact thru
>*doubleweight* fiber paper -- and those exposures are only f8 for 15 or 20
>seconds, although that's on lith, which may be faster than the N31P.
>
>Of course the RC print is better as "paper" positive if you happen to
>have one -- it lies flat better & has no paper texture.
>
>Judy
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>| Judy Seigel, Editor >
>| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
>| info@post-factory.org >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:40