From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 09/10/02-08:27:25 AM Z
Hi Mark,
My remarks about digital negatives referred to earlier digital output,
not to the newest generation of printers. I don't happen to have one of
the newest printers and my prints from digital negatives, while pretty
detailed and subtle, can't equal the quality available from a direct
contact print from the in-camera negative. Having not compared with a
negative from the newer printers, I can't say what I'd think about that
comparison.
I settled reluctantly on Fabriano Uno Hot Press, for want of a better
solution. It's not as smooth as I want, but I tested all the papers in
the Daniel Smith catalog and this came the closest and I didn't have
time to look further at the time because I had a show to get out. What I
really want is like a Bristol plate surface. The Bristol will print
nicely and take one soak, but if you try to print it twice, it falls
apart as soon as it hits the water. If anyone knows of a paper with a
plate-like surface that will take multiple soaks, I'd be happy to know
about it.
kt
Ender100@aol.com wrote:
>
> Katherine,
> I can't speak with any authority until Sam Wang stops laughing at my attempts
> at gum printing. I would be interested, if you would be willing to share,
> what paper you found worked best for sharp gum prints. Also, I have found
> the digital negatives look pretty sharp and detailed on platinum. Do you
> think they are not so with gum? If so, any idea why that would be?
>
> Mark Nelson
> "Went South With The Geese and Flew Home Alone"
>
> In a message dated 9/10/02 2:45:20 PM, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
>
> << Last winter, needing to make a change in gum printing paper (due to a
> change for the worse in the paper I was using, combined with a direction
> in my own work that called for more smoothness and subtlety than the hot
> press watercolor paper I'd been using could provide) I ran dozens of
> test gum prints, contact printing from a 4x5 negative containing very
> fine detail. I was even surprised at the fineness of detail that the gum
> could hold from a small contact print, and I've never been one to argue
> that gum can't do detail. The limiting factor was the paper, not the
> gum. >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST