Re: gum development

Thanks Judy,
I do occasionally leave a print in the tray for several hours and these
indeed tend to be the the best in terms of full photographic details. I
typically work on 9 to 12 prints at once and can not have 12 11x14 or even
larger trays stiing on the bathroom counters and floor. I am looking for a
short development time, not more then 15-30 minuts that could do the
trick. I will try to reduce the dichromate concentration.

Marek
>
> Marek, I have never yet found a spray or abrasion that gave pure whites
> without some loss of the fully photographic look (which IMO is one of the
> kicks of those photographs in paint), or at best a texture grainer than I
> like. However, I'm tempted to guarantee that LONG SOAK will do it. How
> long are you developing? I found that a 24-hour soak will nearly ALWAYS
> give paper white, barring some glitch along the way -- provided the
> negative is dense enough of course. And you do have to expose a bit more
> or lose everything.
>
> That is, the veiling could be due to either too-soft negative or too long
> exposure, aka fog. (Have you checked the negative density against a test
> print from a 21-step?)
>
> And one other thing -- what is your ratio of gum to dichromate? A higher
> ratio of gum gives cleaner whites, tho again it needs more exposure.
>
> Let us know !
>
> Judy
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 mmatusz@pdq.net wrote:
>
>> All,
>> To take a break from all the RGB/CMY discussion I have a question to all
>> experienced gum printers (and others that just like to experiment). I
>> would like to develop my gums to a crisp white. I sieze my papers, so I
>> don't get any stain, but there is usually a very thin vail of color
>> left.
>> I can rub it off with my finger, or a brush, but this is very crude. I
>> have been using a shower head to clear the highlights, but that tends to
>> leave a grainy look. I am wondering if others have tried other methods
>> of
>> "forced" development, like maybe sawdust, or even sand in the tray. Any
>> chemical means to accomplish that?
>> Marek Matusz
>>
>
Received on Thu Dec 9 09:26:45 2004