Re: Rethinking pigment stain

From: Yves Gauvreau ^lt;gauvreau-yves@sympatico.ca>
Date: 12/14/05-11:12:25 AM Z
Message-id: <0a1b01c600d1$8dfb0140$0100a8c0@BERTHA>

Joe,

it seems I was right to fear my simplistic hypothesis was wrong. I'll be
happy to see a "scientific" answer to this problematic.

Thanks
Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Smigiel" <jsmigiel@kvcc.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Rethinking pigment stain

> >>> gauvreau-yves@sympatico.ca 12/14/05 10:58 AM >>>
> >>...I'd be curious to here ear from those who suggest to use a 2:1
> gum / dichro ratio, about their dichromate stain???...<<
>
> Yves,
>
> I routinely use the 2:1 gum/K dichromate ratio for my gum prints and
> still have what I call the dichromate image. I've asked a chemist
> colleague investigate whether this image/stain is some form of chromium
> or simply discolored/tanned gum arabic, but it will be awhile before the
> analysis is completed.
>
> Joe
Received on Wed Dec 14 11:19:46 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/05/06-01:45:10 PM Z CST