From: Hamish Stewart (hamish@gumphoto.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: 07/03/02-02:09:37 AM Z
On 2/7/02 17:48, "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> wrote:
> I've posted a couple of test prints at the Bostick & Sullivan forum
> which show what I'm talking about with spectral density and gum. The
> test prints relate only to digital spectral density negatives, not to
> pyro negatives, but the issues are similar at least if not the same. I
> put it under Coffee House since everything posted to the Alt-Photo
> conference bounces back over here. It's there, for whatever it's worth
> to anyone; I get the feeling that maybe I'm the only one for whom this
> is an interesting question.
> Katharine Thayer
>
Katharine,
As someone who is about to embark on the digital neg process this subject is
of much interest. I have read Dan's book and would have planned to go the
spectral density route but for some of the comments on this list which
suggest that for gum at least plain black ink works best.
Your test prints in coffee house are very useful for me and illustrate well
the difference in response. For my eyes the black ink is definitely
superior.
This begs the question to all gum printers out there making digital negs.
Does anyone use the spectral density method successfully with gum?
As an aside I find that too much density for standard silver negs causes
problems for gum printing as well. Perhaps the problem with the spectral
density negs is related to density rather than colour ie if the spectral
density method is intended to increase the density of the negative for
printing processes with a longer curve than gum then perhaps this method is
also increasing the general density of the negative which may have something
to do with the contrast problems? I don't have an answer but your tests seem
conclusive Katherine. Thanks for sharing them!
Cheers
Hamish
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:11:00 AM Z CST