Re: Gum hardening: top down experiment

Kate

thank you very much, I was beginning to think no one thought this was a
worthwhile approach to the problem. That I went to far and or my explanation
where much to theoric but you wrote back and it makes my day.

Thanks again and my best regards
Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kate M" <kateb@paradise.net.nz>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: Gum hardening: top down experiment

> Thanks for this, Yves, a very thorough explanation of the physics of
> exposure, which I, not having any knowledge of physics at all, was not
aware
> of.
>
> Kate M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Gauvreau [mailto:gauvreau-yves@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2006 11:49 p.m.
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Gum hardening: top down experiment
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think in all this discussion about the top down hardening or vice-versa
> many of you forget one, if not the most important, point. Unless physical
> laws have change recently behind my back, Ok not behind my back I just
> haven't look at it lately but anyway before anything happen with the
> chemical stuff, be it the gum, the pigment, the dichro and even the paper,
> the photons (light) must reach these molecules which ever they are and the
> laws of physics say that if a photo hits an atom in one of those molecules
> it will be absorb, the mechanism of which is irrelevant at this time.
> However thin you can make a gum emultion on a piece of paper or whatever,
> this emultion will deposit on the substrate an extremely large number of
> molecules and as all of you know already these molecules are made of
atoms.
>
> Etc....
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:21 PM
> Subject: RE: Gum hardening: top down experiment
>
>
> > >
> > >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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/310 - Release Date: 12/04/2006
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/311 - Release Date: 13/04/2006
>
Received on Thu Apr 13 16:49:34 2006