Re: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer

Katharine,

losing the decimal doesn't really matter because the numbers where way off
without them, I think most could figure out something was wrong with these
numbers.

I'm sure this is a misunderstanding (on my part) or a different
interpretation of what "contrast" means and since you have much more
experience on this then I do, would you be so kind to explain further what
you mean. "> Well, for me 5% gives too much contrast already, so I sure
wouldn't
want anything less."

About the presentation thing, maybe I mixup things, maybe I misunderstood,
I'm not sure but I was left with the impression that someone would present
this kind of work as a normal paper print . Which seems to "defeat the
purpose" to use your own words.

Regards
Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer

>
> On May 2, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Yves Gauvreau wrote:
>
> > Katharine,
> >
> > bellow you say "675 g dry ammonium dichromate in 5 ml" and it seems
> > you
> > might have mean milligrams (mg) instead of grams (g).
>
> This is weird. The decimal point is there in the message in the "sent
> mail" folder, but seems to have been stripped off in the process of
> transmission. (What with the speed of email and all, I guess that
> little dot must have been blown right off.) The number is .675 grams.
>
> >
> > Back exposing seem to make a gum emultion behave like a carbon
> > tissue where
> > percentage of dichro as low as 1/2 % have been used.
>
> Well, for me 5% gives too much contrast already, so I sure wouldn't
> want anything less.
>
> > I wouldn't be surprise
> > to ear you can make a relief gum print with back exposure. I
> > suppose it is
> > just a question of finding the right ratio of tickness and finding the
> > proper concentration and quantity of each ingredient to use.
>
> Well, we'll see, won't we.
>
> >
> > This not a critic of Marek, you or anyone else but I don't know, I
> > can see
> > the benefit of using some plastic and back exposure for somekind of
> > transparent presentation which could be somewhat magical but I
> > don't see how
> > one can present such a piece without taking advantage of its
> > transparent
> > nature. It would be like trying to show a large Velvia slide (4x5
> > or more)
> > laying flat on a piece of white paper if you see what I mean. Makes me
> > wonder if we should continue to call these "print", maybe calling then
> > "slides" would be more appropriate, just a thought.
>
> Of course these wouldn't be presented like paper prints; that would
> defeat the purpose, as you say. What baffles me is why you would have
> supposed that anyone would do this. My idea is to sandwich them
> between two pieces of glass with a frame that can be seen from both
> sides, wood that holds the glass securely and provides a frame. and
> then hang them between pedestals so that people can walk around
> them. Kind of the way stained glass pieces are displayed.
> Katharine
Received on 05/02/06-10:18:34 AM Z