RE: gold print

Hi Don,

I don't know the why (actually I think it's caused by the extremely high
contrast of the emulsion). All I can say it's the sharpest emulsion I have
ever used. "Definitely better" was said for "sharpness" *only*. There's no
(absolutely zero) bleeding of shadow tones into highlights. Chrysotype (I
mean the formula I'm using) shows the best results with 101-step PDN palette
1x1 pixel grid - same also for the (c) sign in Mark's 31-step tablet (it's
extremely fine). It's so sharp that I will also test to print emulsion up
(maybe this will account for the tonal loss when printing emulsion down).
Since Ultrafine is thin compared to Pictorico I may end up with more usable
results (I give more importance to good tonality than sharpness). For the
moment, due to the poor dot gain when printing onto Ultrafine, the printer's
weaving pattern is very observable on the prints -> hence the grainy results
(it maybe a function of negative color too, but in a lesser extent). The
emulsion itself is grainy in the highlights too. In conclusion, my
version(!) is not good for having the results I want (similar to Ziatype,
even my New Cyanotypes are much better tonally when compared to my
Chrysotypes)... I guess it's like trying to calibrate for grade 3
silver-gelatine paper (I'm sure you'll understand this since you were
calibrating for AZO - have you managed to get grainless/smooth results with
AZO?)

Regards,
Loris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Bryant [mailto:dstevenbryant@mindspring.com]
Sent: 18 Haziran 2006 Pazar 04:21
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: RE: gold print

Loris,

> It's the sharpest emulsion I've ever used (I'm comparing it to New
> Cyanotype and Ziatype - and it's definitely better).
>

Why would that be?

What do you mean by, "definitely better" ?

Don Bryant
Received on 06/18/06-01:22:33 PM Z