From: Clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 04/09/03-12:05:41 PM Z
The multiple instantaneous replies from Kerik and myself in regards to the
weight of BFK made me wonder about the seemingly minute differences in
weight between two of the papers named BFK, (as well as the odds that we
would both be temporarily bored at work and fall victim to 'distractive
technology' at the same precise moment).
Daniel Smith lists a 250 gsm AND a 270gsm . Seems like a very small
difference to me. I have only used the 270 gsm stuff, and wondered if anyone
had a real world comparison against the 250gsm?
Clay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay" <wcharmon@wt.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Paper for Gum Printing
> You are correct sir. Cranes 90# will likely turn to floss under the rigors
> of gumistry. When I use Rives BFK, I use the 270 gsm stuff and pre-shrink
it
> if multiple coats are the goal.
>
> Clay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Painted Horse" <paintedhorse@in-tch.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 12:47 PM
> Subject: Paper for Gum Printing
>
>
> > Hello,
> > I've noticed a lot of folks mention the use of Rives BFK in their gum
> > printing, but I haven't seen any mention of the paper weight. I will
> > start my first attempts at gum in about 2 weeks and am currently
> > rounding up the needed materials. I have never used Rives, but a vendor
> > I spoke with suggested using Cranes 90lb paper. I'm concerned that may
> > be too light and won't hold up to multiple submersions. Am I wrong in
> > this assumption?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bill Mull-
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 05/01/03-11:59:54 AM Z CST