From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/03/03-02:08:13 PM Z
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Gordon J. Holtslander wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I've thought of some images where a lot of the print has absolutely
> nothing - plain paper, and other parts completely falsely colored. Must
> be from living on the prairies surrounded by vast expanses of nothing :)
>
> I could do this with gum, but it would involve a _lot_ of masking.
>
This is a fallacy... In fact all too often, if I've forgotten a print in
the developer tray (all too easy when one is such a busy little bee),
everything washes off ENTIRELY... What you want is to expose lightly
enough so brushing will entirely clear an area, but not so very lightly
that the tone you want is so soft it runs. There is QUITE a large area
where this is possible. In fact, assuming the paper is well sized, almost
any medium exposure can be entirely brushed off IN THE AREAS OF YOUR
CHOICE.
(I wrote a lot about this in P-F, probably the article on one-coat gum.)
However... I advise against the hard gelatin. Maybe it's better in
Saskatoon, but every try of hard gelatin I made (and there were several)
it didn't clear as well as Knox or similar with separate hardener. Don't
ask me why, basic mysterioso... but things like gloy also did only high
contrast, and to get any contone I had to brush. That's not what you want.
You want autodevelopment so just brushing will remove ALL. To brush that
kind of exposure to remove just a little (ie., get your continuous tone
that way) is a delicate operation -- or let's say a higher patience
quotient than desirable.
But to expose gum medium and brush to entirely clear is kindergarden,
honest. still, maybe you should do oil -- assuming you share the drill..
Meanwhile, isn't anyone going to tell me how to spell Dallmeyer???
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST