>
>>I really appreciate your ideas on this. But Panalure, or any other
>>paper, would yield paper negatives that really don't give much detail.
>>This is particularly the case since printing on watercolor paper
itself
>>costs considerable detail because of the tooth of the paper. For
>>negataive, I really have to use film.
>
>I must admit here, as I have in several of my books, that I had the
same
>misconception you have just expressed above, until I saw a number of
>fabulous prints made by Ortiz Echague, all of them made from enlarged
paper
>negatives. As long as your final print is on some sort of artistic,
>textured paper, the paper negative will have a higher resolution than
your
>final paper support, and nobody will be able to tell whether you were
using
>a film neg or paper neg., period!
>
>Another advantage to paper negs and positives, is that they take
retouching
>a lot better.
>
>The only problem, and it can be a serious one if you are using say, a
>sunlamp as a light source, is that exposures are longer. If you can't
>afford a decent graphic arts "platemaker" ($300 to $700, used) you may
have
>to use sunlight. The good news is that sunlight is cheap;-)
>
>Luis Nadeau
>
>
>
>
I'm re-thinking Panalure, based on your comments and those of others.
Exposure time is not an issue, at least not now since I use sunlight
(Both the amount of UV and the price are unbeatable!). I find that
except in high summer in mid-day, I can generally control the
exposure pretty well. But gum is much faster than cyanotype, and
you can't just walk away and come back later to see how its
cooking. I have to stay with it.
I usually use Rives BFK for a paper base. I've tried parchment, and
while I like the results (its smoother) its very easy to tear when wet.
Once again, I appreciate your help. I'll explore the Panalure
possibility.
Gini