From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/29/00-08:33:11 PM Z
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Liam Lawless wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry to have left it so long, but there's an error in my blue toning
> piece in P-F #4. A dilution of 1+1+22 is given wherever I have said
> that really heavy toning is needed (under the headings Brown & Red
> Tones, Bill Rowlinson's Method, and Extended Clearing), but it should
> be 1+1+10. The times stated are correct (15-30 minutes).
And it looks very much like the mistake was the editor's ... thousand
pardons. But now let me get this perfectly straight: For simply blue
toning fiber base papers, the toner should be "no stronger than 1+1+22,"
as in the middle column, page 28.
But for the three following techniques, described on page 29, it should be
1+1+10:
Brown & Red Tones with Sepia and Gold
Bill Rowlinson's Method
Extended Clearing for Effect
I gather also that both the suggested first test of the "Split Toning with
Zinc Chloride" (page 30) and the "Compression Toning" (page 31) are stated
correctly at 1+1+22.
> Iron blue is very intense and prints appear to be fully toned after
> only a short time, but reducing all or nearly all of the image silver
> - which is necessary with these methods - takes a very long time.
> I've had a couple of calls from people who have not been too impressed
> with the results at the wrong dilution, but were more than happy when
> they did it right. So if you've decided these techniques are no good,
> please give them another try.
Having seen a few prints toned by these techniques, I can guarantee that
they are spectacular. So my apologies again. (But on the bright side:
Liam, if it was right to begin with you might never have heard that a
single solitary soul was actually doing it !)
Judy
> P.S. Ilford MG IV is not a good paper for blue toning, at least in fibre base. Don't know about the plastic.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04/24/00-04:37:11 PM Z CST