On Dec 7, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Tom Sobota wrote:
> The problems of opacity and transparency of pigments are not unknown
> to me. They are also not unique to gum printing but are relevant to
> carbon and of course the whole printing industry.
Surely; the point was simply that the law that relates "optical
density" to opacity doesn't hold so well when you get away from the
process(es) that it was originally worked out for.
I think that while this has been an exhausting discussion (not helped
by the fact that posts were arriving in random order) it's also helped
us (with Joe as scribe) clarify our terms. And thanks for comments
about my site. Forward together!
Katharine
>
> This said, of course I have visited your web pages. I enjoyed very
> much (and learned from) the pigments discussion, which is uncommonly
> informative.
>
> I started doing monochrome gums, and did them for a long time. Only
> very recently I started to experiment in trichromy, and my choice of
> phthalo blue came, if I'm not mistaken, after reading your material.
> If not in your pages, certainly on the list. For you it might be too
> 'garish', as you say, but for me it is perfect. I'm one of those
> 'opaque tone printers' as you define them :-)
>
> Tom
>
> At 16:30 07/12/2005, you wrote:
> .. If you're interested, look at the discussion about opacity and
> transparency on my pigment page, and see the chart which shows opaque
> pigments on one side and transparent pigments on the other, going all
> the way to a black which Photoshop calls 100% black.
> Katharine
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 7 14:13:05 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/05/06-01:45:10 PM Z CST