From: Wendy Gollihue (wgolli@flash.net)
Date: 04/22/02-07:12:50 AM Z
This is the order of my printing process:
I lay the sensitized paper on the felt of the printing out frame.
I lay a piece of acetate on top of the sensitized paper.
Then i put the negative in place. The acetate protects my negative.
(Again, this separates the negative from the paper and is not apparently
reducing sharpness)
Then i have taped together lith film with lith tape to make a mask that
will lie on top of my negative. I don't put it between the negative and
paper.
It gives me the option to later print that
negative without a mask if i wanted. I don't have to take all the tape
off.
Then i put the glass and frame on and secure it.
My prints printed in fluourescent, merc. light and sunlight all seem to have
sharpness. No apparent fuzziness.
My printing times have come to be about 3-6 minutes.
Is there any wrong light hitting the sensitized paper and print when you do
your checks?
Wendy (TX)
-----Original Message-----
From: William Marsh [mailto:redcloud54@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:28 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Reduced Platinum Print Sharpness
Stephen,
Is the "unsharpness" in random areas acroos the whole print, or is it
only near the edges?
If it is near the edges it could be the rubylith is holding the neg off
the paper, thereby producing the fuzz.
FWIW,
Bill
stephen wasilewski wrote:
>
> Judy,
>
> Thanks. Mine is painted flat white. Still, all
> causes are worth considering. There is some basic
> cause I have not found. I have only one negative that
> was printed on both light sources. The paper batches
> and water source are different. Humidity and room
> temperature could be different.
>
> I still have some thought that the contrast and long
> print time that gives a low density border where I
> have masked with rubylith may indicate a fogging in
> the body of the print.
>
> Steve
>
> --- Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, stephen wasilewski wrote:
> >
> > > I first printed a negative using a printer's plate
> > > burner and was very please with sharpness.
> > >
> > > Subsequent prinings using a flourescent bank gave
> > very
> > > reduced sharpness with some detail disappearing.
> >
> > The question has been gone over so carefully it's
> > not likely this could
> > have been overlooked -- but on the outside chance, I
> > mention that it used
> > to be common to cover the base of a flourescent
> > light table with aluminum
> > foil to supposedly increase the light by
> > "reflection" -- in fact one of
> > the manuals (either Nadeau or Palladio) suggested
> > that, and Phil Davis in
> > his article in Photo Techniques said he had done so
> > (while also
> > "explaining" that gum is by nature "soft focus").
> > I, too, had lined with
> > foil at the outset, but one day made a comparison
> > with the NuArc, which I
> > was using at the time.
> >
> > Ooops !! (for all media).
> >
> > I removed the foil, which aside from whatever other
> > qualities, was very
> > crinkly -- subsequent prints were comparable to the
> > Nu Arc, except gum
> > prints probably less contrasty.
> >
> > Judy
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
> http://games.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST