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

Terry,

your position on the pertinence of manipulating the distribution of values on a negative in order to produce a better match between the neg and the properties of a process dependent print is well known. I don't critic your position, I just don't understand why an experience guy like you who probably as work very hard to get is negatives to match as much as possible the exposure scale and other characteristics of his print process material. Even assuming you never did made any special effort of any kind ie. use and develop his films as per the manufacturer recommendations. I'm sure you tried to bring the best out of your prefered ones amoung all these negs in some fashion or another.

If you did any kind of change to your negatives and or chosen a different paper grade or even choose a process that would produce the best image you can do or think of. Well today, with computer program like Photoshop you can practically print any negative on any kind of paper or whatever process you can think of. This as been done for years in the printing industry, ok it's not art but the basic are exactly the same.

Regards
Yves

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: TERRYAKING@aol.com
  To: alt-photo-process-L@usask.ca
  Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:05 PM
  Subject: Re: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer

  In a message dated 2/5/06 11:53:14 pm, gauvreau-yves@sympatico.ca writes:

    Mark,

    I'm sorry Mark, I don't get it, "define parameters" like you do here and from a person who wrote a highly regarded book on the subject. What's a "tones of density"? Ok, I figured that one out. I'm beginning to think that like me english is not your forte and it would explain a lot of things like the para below where I see more confusion then definitions.

    Regards

    Yves

     
>Let's assume that a digital negative can have a maximum of 256 possible tones of density. (If that is ok with you) and that a radical curve is going will >reduce the number of tones from 256, so let's consider a not so radical curve. Let's also assume that the negative matches the exposure scale of >the gum mix before the curve is added.
    =

  Yves

  This was an attempt to explain the inexplicable.

  The curves are not only an unnecessary complication but they also confuse the issue. Expressed without reference to curves, all this is saying is that there is a loss of gradation if the density of the print is 'stretched'.

  Incidentally, how would you explain Puyo's technique in making single coat gum prints ?

  Furthermore, if you think that you are not getting your point over in English, why not make the point in French too ?
Received on 05/02/06-05:33:41 PM Z