Re: Rethinking pigment stain

Just want to perhaps overclarify here that I do of course know the
difference between pigment stain and fog, as I spelled out in the
initial post in this thread. Pigment stain is pigment alone; fog is
crosslinked gum with pigment in it. I'm struggling toward an expanded
definition of pigment stain that acknowledges that excess pigment
behaves differently on different papers although in all cases it
manifests itself as pigment tone in areas where it doesn't "belong."
However, my expanded definition, defining pigment stain as pigment
where it doesn't belong, doesn't distinguish between stain and fog,
which makes it somewhat problematic, was my point. But since I've come
to see pigment stain as a continuum, rather than an either/or thing, I
want a more inclusive definition for it. Perhaps I shouldn't publicly
expose my thought processes, because some people find it confusing, but
to me it's more interesting to hash these things out in a public
discussion.

Whether the "tonal reversal" thing is stain or fog could be settled
with some kind of analysis, perhaps, to determine whether it is
actually just pigment or crosslinked gum with pigment in it, but my
point is that it would be difficult practically to tell the difference
between the two. Yesterday I proved to myself that the same pigment
concentration that produced the "tonal reversal" for me on sized paper,
also produced pigment stain (in the traditional sense) on the same
paper unsized, which is another reason why I think it's the same thing
just behaving a little differently on the sized paper.
Katharine

On Dec 13, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> You're no doubt correct, but be that as it may, the point was that fog
> and pigment stain aren't easy to distinguish, if the definition of
> pigment stain is pigment that adheres to paper where it doesn't
> belong, rather than pigment that is impossible to remove from paper,
> even if I think the broader definitiion is more useful. But I agree
> with Dave that fog in gum isn't that common, so perhaps it's a moot
> point.
> kt
>
> On Dec 13, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Ender100@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Katherine,
>>
>> I think you might be referring to a comment I made where I was
>> suggesting that in that particular case you are talking about it
>> seemed to be stain, but that there was also the possibility in other
>> cases that one could have Stain or fog or both that leave pigment
>> where it shouldn't be.
>>
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Mark Nelson
>> Precision Digital Negatives
>> PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
>> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>>
>> In a message dated 12/13/05 1:30:43 PM, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> One problem with this more inclusive definition is that it doesn't
>> distinguish between stain and fog.  Someone referred recently to a
>> discussion from last summer where Mark showed a gum test print where
>> there was color on areas where the print should have been paper
>> white. 
>> I called that stain, and was told that it was fog.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wed Dec 14 13:45:30 2005