Hi Katherine,
No problem, you subsequently answered my question by clarifying what you
meant in an earlier post and it made sense to me. So I am as content as can be.
I don't mind at all asking questions that might lead someone to think that I
am ignorant—however, I probably shouldn't be credited wtih being more ignorant
than I really am. Should that happen, I might become arrogant or something
hehehehehee
Thanks,
Mark "I may be ignorant, but I ain't stupid" Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives--The Book
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
In a message dated 5/4/06 4:05:42 PM, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
> Mark, I saw and then somehow lost your followup. Sorry if I seemed
> snappish a couple of posts ago. I don't read Yves's posts as a rule,
> but did see some of the jeering directed my way in the quotes
> attached to your responses, and I suppose some of my annoyance was a
> response to that. He just doesn't seem to get that you can't draw
> any connection between number of steps printed and absolute print
> density or tonal scale, because the density, tonal scale, and
> contrast are a function of the emulsion and are different for every
> emulsion.
>
> I just wanted to reply to your hope that one should be able to get a
> good one-coat print by saying yes, certainly one can get a fairly
> good "fully tonal" one-coat gum by balancing pigment concentration
> and dichromate, and people have been doing that for quite a while (I
> can get a fine one-coat in that sense with saturated ammonium
> dichromate and the right pigment load) but like I keep saying,
> there's fully tonal and then there's fully tonal. The only way I've
> seen yet to get a fully tonal print in the sense of very subtle
> gradations throughout a long scale, like a platinum or carbon print,
> is by multiple printing, although I've seen some promise in the back-
> exposure experiments. But I'll be delighted if you or Chris or
> whoever can prove me wrong. That's what we're about here, to learn
> from each other.
> Katharine
>
Received on 05/04/06-04:51:01 PM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 06/23/06-10:10:53 AM Z CST