>
>Which is to say, I would say a print on plastic is a different
>medium, an OHP-o-Graph, perhaps. If it proves to be hardened from
>top or bottom, very interesting, but I print on paper, and much of
>what I've read (including the sainted, notorious, blessed/evil Mike
>Ware) AND my own experience shows the paper to be an active part of
>the process.
>
>The dichromate (with or without gum) DOES sink into the fibers of
>the paper. But does it just lie there like a lotke (it's Passover,
>folks, if I could spell lotke confidently I'd tell you more), or is
>it part of the action? My impression is that it's active, and I
>point out that IME each paper performs differently. I suspect more
>than just sizes are different, but the fact that different papers
>need different sizes is also a clue.
>
>J.
I don't disagree with any of this. A print made on plastic exposing
through the surface of the plastic would have IMHO different image
characteristics. In fact, I have stated that opinion several times.
As for gum on paper, I have no opinion, other than until someone
presents a compelling theory as to why image formation is not
primarily top down I will continue to believe that it is. Hopefully
Chris will address that in her class this summer in SF.
Sandy
Received on Wed Apr 12 21:21:26 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/01/06-11:10:24 AM Z CST