On Thu, 4 May 2006, Ender100@aol.com wrote:
> The clarification I was actually looking for, however, was in the other post
> you made and I responded to that. It had to do with the affect of pigment
> load on contrast.
The affect of pigment load on contrast is quite happy, pigment is glad to
have a job and do it. The *effect* of pigment load on contrast is,
generally speaking (IME) as Katharine says and, as shown in Post-Factory
#2, first printed October, 1998, page 46.
The item, "How to Cheat at Gum," also mentions another instance in which
Paul Anderson was wrong... effect of his chronic "seems logical disease."
He explained (faithfully cut & pasted ever since) that the more pigment in
a gum emulsion the more different tones you could get.
However, in areas where Anderson actually DID a process, rather than
theorize, he was fine. He wasn't the first, but very clear and correct, on
the use of 3 coats of different exposures and density to achieve a
complete tonality... explained in his Techniques of Pictorial Photography
(title from memory, sorry), and a useful general gum printing practice
before and since.
Judy
Received on 05/05/06-10:20:14 AM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 06/23/06-10:10:53 AM Z CST