On Aug 3, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> Okay, here's something to wake y'all up, since people are getting
> restless about getting no mail from the list:
>
> I've been printing PR 209 (quinacridone red) at four exposures,
> from underexposed to overexposed, on samples of all different kinds
> of paper. (I've got a little stack of paper odds and ends that I'm
> trying to use up). My goal was to try to see if it's true, as is
> often alleged here, that stain is related inversely to exposure, in
> other words that underexposed gum is more likely to stain than gum
> that has received more exposure. I figured if it were true, this
> effect would have to show up if I did a bunch of test strips at
> different exposures. .... ....
>
Now that my scanner is back from the shop, I scanned some of these in
case anyone is interested in looking at them. I added another series
of tests which involved pre-exposing the paper prior to exposing with
the test strips, as perhaps a better way of testing the assertion
that exposure lessens the likelihood of stain; this series of tests
also failed to support the assertion.
http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/stainexposure.html
Katharine
Received on 08/16/06-08:41:39 AM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 09/01/06-12:02:08 PM Z CST