Re: A little gum test

Yes, I had to give up on the direct light right at the beginning. New
Zealand has a very high U.V. anyway, and I think diffuse light may contain a
higher proportion - think of the need for filtration when taking photos in
shade outdoors to correct the blue tones....
Kate
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: A little gum test

> Kate Mahoney wrote:
> >
> > 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!
> >
>
> No, you sure wouldn't think so, would you? I'm throwing in the towel on
> this one; I can't make heads or tails of it. I hate it that every time
> I think I've got something figured out, it turns out to be more
> complicated than I thought, but I think that's an occupational hazard of
> being a gum printer. Whatever works for you, go for it, is the main
> thing, and don't mind me over in the corner trying to make sense of
> it.
>
> I too have been surprised at how much UV there is in shade, even in my
> sun-deprived part of the world. I've not printed outside very much, but
> in my few experiments with it I found that direct sun was too intense
> for saturated ammonium dichromate, unless I cut the exposure to a few
> seconds, and that exposures in shade were about the same time as under
> my light in the studio.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Katharine.
>
>
Received on Mon Dec 15 14:28:48 2003