Re: Gum Tri-Color Yellow

I wonder if the muddy brown is an issue not so much of the colors used, but perhaps poor color seperation in the negatives, or too fine a screen in the seperate negatives. Larger dots of each color might give better color rendition, just as it does with inkjet printing and matte papers.

Mark Nelson

In a message dated 7/4/2004 5:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com> writes:

>Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>      I'm out of town and not real connected to a computer here, so probably
>> missed some of the tricolor posts.  Plus I have to use this crummy small
>> laptop keyboard. But, for whatever it is worth:
>>      I've used all kinds of magentas/reds and they seem to
>> work....quinacridone magenta, anthraquinoid red, bright red, etc.  With
>> tricolor seps which are RGB (not CMYK) the only time I've had problems with
>> the red layer was when i used bright red (W and N) and it was just
>> that--BRIGHT.  Pretty garish.  But then when I want to get a Clemson Tiger
>> orange in my tricolor, it works great.  You can see the reds on two of my
>> images on Unblinkingeye.com--the Drayton Hall brick wall doorway image, and
>> the Home Cookin image, the red is visible in the taillights of the car.
>> Since I am away from my tubes of paint at the moment I can't tell you the
>> exact colors, except I know it has been Q Magenta by Daniel Smith and any of
>> the reds by M. Graham and W+N--never the fugitive ones like Alizarin.  I
>> particularly like the anthraquinoid.  I don't use cad red much.  In other
>> words, I vary the use of my reds and have not found it a concern.
>
>Hi Chris,
>I think you may have missed the point: throughout this discussion it has
>never been debated that any of the reds under discussion print well by
>themselves (as in your red taillights) or in combination with one other
>color (as in your orange brick doorway). The issue is a brownish hue
>that can appear when all three colors are printed over each other, and,
>at least as they appear in jpegs on my system, many of your images
>evince this brownish hue where the colors are combined. I'm not saying
>this is wrong, or a mistake, or anything, in fact I think the brownish
>cast is very effective in your images. But the whole point of this
>discussion has been: for people who don't want that brownish cast, what
>to do? My answer is to choose reds that have a violet component but not
>much of a blue component.
>Katharine
>
>
>
>>      However, this is with tricolor seps; printing the same BW neg with
>> tricolor would probably entail more adjustment.
>
>
>>      I have not found it an exact science; more importantly I find that the
>> amount of each pigment is my variable to mess with; the color choice is not
>> as critical.
>>      Then again, I am not trying to imitate a type C-print, preferring the
>> imperfections of the gum process and the variability that I get; that is the
>> charm of the process.  In other words, if they are too perfect,
>> non-photographers see them and do not know they are gums; photographers see
>> them and wonder why not just print a C-print?  Which to me is a valid
>> question.
>>      Some of the prints that I did that were very muted and soft were the
>> ones the faculty liked, ex:  the Vanity, Vanity image on Unblinkingeye.com.
>> I had begun my prints in that style, and one faculty member told me to up my
>> color/contrast, so I added double the color of each pigment and printed that
>> way from then on.  Then I find that the muted way was seductive to others.
>> Just like sometimes I get a bit of flaking in a part of the print and I
>> think it is a failed print, and then a faculty member will say they like
>> that gritty look (e.g. the garbage bag with the yellow tie on
>> Unblinkingeye.com; it is gritty on the right side).  Bottom line:  there are
>> many ways to get beautiful gums that may not entail perfect color balance,
>> saturation.  But you all already know that, I'm sure you'll tell me...
>> Chris
>
Received on Sun Jul 4 12:38:18 2004