Re: Image formation in gum

Joe,

Yes they seem to be brighter. Is it real or is it just differences in light
reflection? I'm also baffled by this. But see below...

And why the letters have imaged, yes ...

I have the feeling that we are up to something that will eventually
help understanding the inversion. Again, perhaps not :-)

Anyway, I just uploaded a detail of the same image without scaling
down so you can see the effect better. It is here:
http://usuarios.arsystel.com/tksobota/Gum_on_glass_5.jpg

The same region, once dry (24 hs. in Madrid, which usually means
_bone_ dry) is here:
http://usuarios.arsystel.com/tksobota/Gum_on_glass_6.jpg
This is not a photography but a monochrome scan by transparency.
In this image the gum has dried so there are no 3D light effects as in
the other images. There is indeed a difference in optical density
between the letters.

Tom Sobota
Madrid, Spain

At 13:27 16/12/2005, you wrote:
> >>> tsobota@teleline.es 12/16/05 5:32 AM >>>
> >>...In image 4 what I interpreted willfully as inversion is probably
>just an
>optical effect...<<
>
>Tom,
>
>I thought this as well but then I took the image into Photoshop and
>checked the brightness with the sampling tool and info window. The
>letters T, O, and U are definitely brighter than the rest. Why this is
>baffles me. Perhaps they have just cleared better at the point in which
>you made the photo. Or???
>
>What I'm intrigued about is why the letters have imaged and stuck while
>the areas both surrounding them and outside the wedge which received
>more exposure have not adhered and are floating away.
>
>Joe
Received on Fri Dec 16 07:36:23 2005