From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 11/22/02-05:03:55 PM Z
Judy wrote:
>
>But getting back that "wet look" is exactly the holy grail... 9 times out
>of 10 the print (in any medium, including SG) looks better wet. We've
>fantasized about a show of everything under water. The difference between
>wet with water and dry-with-some-kind-of-glaze has so far been night &
>day.
One of the reasons I am so fond of carbon is that the print looks
almost as good dry as wet. There is some dry-down so you have to
compensate for density difference but there is very little if any
loss of depth in the shadows with carbon, not so with the other
processes I use, mainly vandyke and kallitype.
Sandy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST