FotoDave@aol.com
Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:25:58 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 11/27/99 12:55:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jseigel@panix.com writes:
> > This slower rate of development with shadow gives a practical limit to
> > achieving Dmax with single-coat gum.
>
> Dave, I agree with all you've said so far (and need I add a million
> congratulations !? Don't feel bad about grousing -- some people have an
> AMAZING sense of entitlement!), but sentence directly above I think is not
> true.
Hi Judy,
Thanks for the congratulations. I agree with what you said about gum. The
difference seems to be simply how much details our we are talking about.
> With a gouache or other strong pigment AND A NEGATIVE MATCHED TO THE
> SCALE OF THE MIX you can get a D-Max with one coat as dark as the pigment
> will coat. Or so it has seemed to me. There are probably tradeoffs,
> perhaps some flaking or staining
Yes, I do have a test with gouache and high DMax too, but the trade-off can
make control a little difficult. In additional to the flaking that you
mentioned above, the scale is also a little short, but gum already has a
short scale, so I ended up having, if I remember correctly, just 5 steps from
light to dark.
With such a short scale, there seem to be a tonal jump from midtone to
highlight, as you also noted in the journal (issue #3, I believe). When I
noticed that, I felt that with such a short scale and tonal jump, everything
(negative range, exposure, and development) must be perfect, and that might
be difficult to control for every negative, so I basically stopped from doing
further tests. Beside step tablet, I didn't even make a complete image with
that particular mix. Now that I think about it, I think I did stop a little
too early.
> But when you call your method a *carbon* print, what is the basis for that
> definition? Because it's based in gelatin rather than gum arabic?
No, the name (or the decision to call it direct *carbon* print) does not have
anything to do with the colloid used. It is just that this term has been used
for non-transfer method, so I simply used it. It is not technically
descriptive, but even the "carbon" in carbon process is not technically
descriptive either. But people are already familiar with that term, so I
simply follow.
Dave Soemarko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Check out the Soemarko's Direct Carbon process at
http://hometown.aol.com/fotodave/SDC/SdcIndex.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 05 1999 - 17:09:24