Re: A little gum test

What's really interesting is that I NEVER use direct sun - all my prints are
exposed in a corridor with high windows which reflects a lot of light - but
I think the UV must be high because digital shots in the area always come
out very blue on daylight setting. You would hardly think that 4 min
exposures in diffuse light would be overexposed!

Kate

----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: A little gum test

> Kate Mahoney wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark, Less contrast with the saturated solution was
> > postulated....so I'thought I'd give it a whirl. I have been getting
> > rather flat prints so this is good news. The results (to me) show some
> > of the reason why I've been having some trouble with this technique -
> > obviously too much amm.di. I think the reason why the tones are better
> > is that mostly I've just been overexposing with the amm. di. at the
> > more concentrated level...
>
>
> Thanks Kate, this provides some confirmation for a suspicion I've had
> for some time, that when people say that saturated ammonium dichromate
> prints flat, perhaps what they really mean is that they overexpose when
> they print with saturated ammonium dichromate. I have never observed
> that saturated ammonium dichromate prints flat when properly exposed.
> That not only the shadows but the highlights were blocked (I'm assuming
> you mean after a reasonable development time) suggests that the problem
> was related to significant overexposure, as you suggest above, rather
> than to the contrast range of the saturated dichromate per se.
> kt
>
Received on Mon Dec 15 13:49:47 2003