Chris,
Maybe he just made a mistake once and did it this way and went "Eureka!"
I think the Guinness hypothesis is the best though....
Do you think the layer of pigment that is added later just adheres to the
"sticky part" of the paper where the gelatin remains that was possibly hardened
by the dichromate? Does the non-exposed gelatin wash off in the first
development bath?
Mark Nelson
www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com
In a message dated 6/24/04 10:48:17 AM, zphoto@uslink.net writes:
> PS Correction!
>
> (mind you, no bichromate has been supposedly washed out in the water)
> should say (mind you, no bichromate**, it** has been supposedly washed out
> in the water). In other words, the bichromate is washed out (not cleared,
> tho)of the exposed print that is exposed under a normal neg, and then the
> layer of pigment that is applied afterwards to this developed paper contains
> no bichromate.
>
> What is weird: how, do you think, he would ever have devised this process??
> I mean, was he snorting Guinness or something?
> Chris
>
Received on Thu Jun 24 10:16:40 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/02/04-09:40:14 AM Z CST