So....how is that done, Sandy? Applying a +2/3 log density difference, that is. I know how to try to pry one sheet into two as I just recently purchased my first box of Pictorico and my first though was, "Gee, this is thick stuff." Or are you talking about something other than a digineg?
Thanks!
Judy
-- Judy Rowe Taylor Mukilteo, WA Art is a voice of the heart, a song of the soul. www.enduringibis.com jude.taylor@comcast.net or judyrowetaylor@enduringibis.com
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:07:17 +0000
From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
Subject: Re: Pictorico Bummer
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_/wUUeYAcKknzZn2dfKt6ZA)"
--Boundary_(ID_/wUUeYAcKknzZn2dfKt6ZA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
2 sheets stuck together? Mark, Mark!! But you know, I tried to pry
the piece apart because my first thought when I pulled the sheet from
the package was that it had to be two pieces stuck together. But
alas, not.
Nope, one really thick sheet, and the other 14 sheets in the package
are just as thick.
The good news is that I just applied the log correction of +2/3 more
stop indicated by the UV density difference of 0.20 and the print was
perfect. Long exposure, but at least the overall density range is not
different so one can still base exposures on a UV shadow density
reading.
Sandy
>Content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
>Content-language: en
>
>Sandy,
>
>Boy that is a bummer-are you sure you don't have 2 sheets stuck together?
>
>I bought a bunch of it quite some time ago in both 8.5 x11 and 13 x
>19 , so I am still going through that stock.
>
>Mark Nelson
><http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/>Precision Digital Negatives
>
>In a message dated 8/19/05 8:49:49 PM, sanking@clemson.edu writes:
>
>>I just opened a new box of 13X19" Pictorico and made a negative this
>>evening. I noticed that the stock was quite a bit thicker than the
>>previous stock of 13X19" material that I had been using so I decoded
>>to take a reading of the UV base with my densitometer. It measures a
>>full log .20 more than the old stock, .16 versus .37.
>>
>>What a pain. I have been basing my printing on first making a smaller
>>negative on 8.5X11" material and then honing in exposure before
>>making a larger one on 13X19", and getting perfect exposures. That is
>>now no longer possible due to the change of stock.
>>
>>Anyone know if the the thickness of the 8.5X11" is still the same?
>>
>>
>>Sandy
--Boundary_(ID_/wUUeYAcKknzZn2dfKt6ZA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Pictorico Bummer</title></head><body>
<div>2 sheets stuck together? Mark, Mark!! But you know, I tried to
pry the piece apart because my first thought when I pulled the sheet
from the package was that it had to be two pieces stuck together. But
alas, not.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Nope, one really thick sheet, and the other 14 sheets in the
package are just as thick.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The good news is that I just applied the log correction of +2/3
more stop indicated by the UV density difference of 0.20 and the print
was perfect. Long exposure, but at least the overall density range is
not different so one can still base exposures on a UV shadow density
reading.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Sandy</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Content-type: text/html;
charset=UTF-8<br>
Content-language: en<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000">Sandy,<br>
<br>
Boy that is a bummer-are you sure you don't have 2 sheets stuck
together?<br>
<br>
I bought a bunch of it quite some time ago in both 8.5 x11 and 13 x 19
, so I am still going through that stock.<br>
<br>
Mark Nelson<br>
</font><a href="http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/"><font
face="Geneva" size="-1" color="#0000FF">Precision Digital
Negatives</font></a><font face="Geneva" size="-1" color="#000000"><br>
<br>
In a message dated 8/19/05 8:49:49 PM, sanking@clemson.edu writes:<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000">I just opened a new box of 13X19" Pictorico and
made a negative this<br>
evening. I noticed that the stock was quite a bit thicker than the<br>
previous stock of 13X19" material that I had been using so I
decoded<br>
to take a reading of the UV base with my densitometer. It measures
a<br>
full log .20 more than the old stock, .16 versus .37.<br>
<br>
What a pain. I have been basing my printing on first making a
smaller<br>
negative on 8.5X11" material and then honing in exposure
before<br>
making a larger one on 13X19", and getting perfect exposures.
That is<br>
now no longer possible due to the change of stock.<br>
<br>
Anyone know if the the thickness of the 8.5X11" is still the
same?<br>
<br>
<br>
Sandy</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_/wUUeYAcKknzZn2dfKt6ZA)--
Received on Sat Aug 20 10:59:27 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/01/05-09:17:20 AM Z CST