From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/15/01-02:01:15 PM Z
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Juan Riera wrote:
> I have read that Stephen Livick does not like BL tubes very much, as he says
> results are flat and lacking contrast on dichromate gum.
This statement is ... incomplete.... as are many of Livick's
pronunciamentos. The "contrast" in gum printing isn't a factor of one
variable, but combo of exposure, mix, neg, paper, development, etc. The
easiest way to up contrast is just put in more pigment. That *may* require
other adjustments to avoid flaking, but the denser the tone, the
contrastier it prints.
It's possible that given the neg & mix Livick tested, a BL bulb printed
flatter (I've done tests where it was flatter also), but, if you happen to
have Post-Factory #2, look at page 46. It shows two 21-step prints with
everything the same except B has twice the ultramarine watercolor of A.
It's about 5 punchy steps (the darkest was the full color of the tube
paint). A shows a couple more steps, darkest of which is less than half
the tube color. In fact, printing several coats from monochrome neg, I
find the pitfall is too much depth/contrast, have to keep diluting.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST