Re: Digital negatives for gum printing

[Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>]

I'm probably too tired to be posting; I just got worried about how you
would take this. I didn't mean that it's not a good print, I only meant
that it doesn't seem significantly different in any way from a gum print
made from another kind of digital negative. It's not a bad print, it's
just not significantly different from other good gum prints, is what I
meant. (Imagine me grinning a big worried grin like one of the chickens
in the movie Chicken Run.) Think I'd better log out now,
Katharine 


Katharine Thayer wrote:
> 
 The print itself did not seem remarkable in its detail, tonal
> separation, or other qualities, and could be produced using what you
> consider lesser digital negative types, in my opinion.
>