Ricardo,
I forgot to answer your other question: I use classic cyanotype 2:1
(exposures 6 mn UVBL) for my first layer, not Ware's because Ware's doesn't
like Fabriano Artistico Extra White paper very much. Plus the classic is
closer to the cyan blue that is required for the cyan layer of a tricolor.
Oh, and as far as each example you gave below, re: using cyanotype for cyan
instead of gum:
richness of results: yes
saving time: yes and no. cyanotype develops in 5-15 minutes for the yes, no
because saving time with gum doesn't really matter to me.
archival reasons: no. both are equally archival.
matter of style: perhaps. The cyanotype is a sharp, clean, base image to
apply layers on.
As far as congratulations for "the wonderful job I am doing", this weekend I
did 6 large gums and I:
1. had to reprint a negative 6 times until I figured I had selected 8x10
instead of 8x5x11 in my print driver.
2. had to reprint another negative several times because of minute banding.
3. screwed up on my cyanotype coating so that there were white spots in the
print where no cyanotype was.
4. misregistered 3 of the six.
5. got big honkin' air bubble marks on a couple because I was grading
students while gum printing and not agitating in the development enough.
I have good weeks and bad weeks :)
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricardo Wildberger Lisboa" <ricardo@saw.com.br>
Christina,
What is it so different in terms of results to make you use a cyanotype
layer on your prints (which is the involvement with another process),
instead of using gum for all the three layers, what seems to be more
coherent or straightforward? Is it for the richness of results, for saving
time, archival reasons, or a matter of style? Another point is what kind of
cyanotype you do use: traditional or Mike Ware's new one? By the way,
congratulation for the wonderful job you're doing.
Ric
Received on Tue Nov 15 08:20:31 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/01/05-02:04:50 PM Z CST