Judy,
At 08:15 02/12/2005, you wrote:
... In fact I think I need to check the
>original again (assuming I can lay hands on it),
Yes, that'd be interesting. I am also looking for the reference but cannot
find it. I last saw it perhaps a month ago, but ...
>Well actually, I always register a gum print on the light table, viewing
>through the negative and the new coat of emulsion to the coat beneath (tho
>it doesn't work very well over yellow, it does fine over red, and even
>fine details can be read (tho I don't know about newspaper -- maybe the
>print was larger in those days?). Anyway, I just assumed they put the
>paper on the light table & stuck the newspaper under it. (Uh oh, their
>"light tables" were vertical, using sunlight -- hmmmm.)
This is interesting. I use register pins, well, actually a pair of wooden
pegs I 'built' myself, inserted in the contact press, which is also
self-made, no vacuum, but works surprisingly decently.
What I register on the light table are the negatives, before punching the
holes in them.
I would have thought that registering a coated, thick paper on a light
table is no easy task. But you do it, eh?
What seems to be vertical these days are the newspapers. I mean, I read
almost all the news on Internet, and I'm hardly the only one. Perhaps we
could reach everlasting fame in gum-world adapting the method for a
computer screen :-)
>Exactly.... keeping the idea of the transparency in mind was probably
>enough -- tho again, I myself don't print that way, and of course if
>you're doing a tri-color gum with a halftone (or digital) negative, you
>have a lot of solid opaque dots -- quite different I dare say.
In a digital negative you have actually color density gradations in the
dots, it's not quite the same as in halftone. But we are speaking of
transparency in the coat, not in the negative?
Tom
Received on Fri Dec 2 03:02:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/05/06-01:45:09 PM Z CST