From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 06/20/01-03:24:39 AM Z
Richard Sullivan FRPS wrote:
>
>
> A well trained ear hears things that aren't there.
Hmmm......
I'd like to see a true blind test where the folks judging the quality
and "life" of a print don't know in advance what light source was used
to make which print. Maybe you could do this at APIS, Dick. If judges
are shown a number of different prints made using different light
sources, and if they reliably pick the platinum prints, the gum prints,
the cyanotypes, etc (each printing medium considered separately of
course) that are printed with one type of light source as the
best-quality, most life, depth, whatever, then that would be information
worth paying attention to.
As to light sources for gum, I've never printed with FL bulbs so can't
offer any comparison data, objective or subjective, on that score, and
for other diffuse light sources I can only offer one trial at printing
outside in the shade. I was surprised at how much UV there was in the
shade; I got a well-exposed print in 3 minutes. But the lack of
sharpness was striking. Where there should have been tiny but
recognizable shapes, there were just round blobs. That one, there was no
mistaking the difference between the print as printed in diffuse UV and
in my usual printing outfit. So I have to agree that a very diffuse
light source can be a problem for gum printing, but I'm waiting for the
results of this blind test between the more usual printing sources,
before I draw further conclusions.
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:54 AM Z CST