Re: Sam Wang light?

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/14/04-07:54:00 PM Z
Message-id: <a06020404bc2ba05a34f8@[192.168.1.100]>

And I will add one final bit of information, which I think one could
gather from the article at UnblinkingEye. As far as I can remember
Sam has printed gum with negatives of a fairly low density range, say
on the order of 0.95 or even less. The digital negatives that he
currently makes are of this DR, or perhaps even slightly less. His
results, from my perspective, are perfectly consistent in terms of
basic colloid theory with the need to use a weak dichromate
sensitizer with low contrast negatives.

Sandy King

And I should add that before the UV bank of UL tubes he was using a
Nuarc N750. And before that a GE sunlamp.

Sandy King

Katharine,

I did not see your question about Sam's light source on first
reading. He has been using a NuArc 261K platemaker for a year or so.
Before that he was printing with a bank of BL tubes.

Sandy King

Katharine,

What I wrote was that Sam uses a very dilute dichromate solution in
his work and his exposure times are still quite short. I know this
because I have watched him work. Sam's work clearly proves that gum
prints can be made with fairly short exposure times using other than
saturated dichromate solutions. Exactly what it is that you find
about this contrary to any other position I may have taken to "data"
is a mystery to me.

Indeed, I have no idea what kind of data you believe should be
forthcoming from either Sam or me. Sam describes his working
procedures rather completely in the article at UnblinkingEye. I am
not currently working with gum dichromate prints and have no
intention of providing data of any kind on the subject.

Sandy King

>This discussion is making me remember the discussion about speed and
>dichromate concentration in gum, in which Sandy argued that Sam's
>printing times must be about the same for diluted dichromate as they
>would be for saturated dichromate, even though to date there has been no
>comparison data offered whatever to show that this is true. This seems
>oddly contrary to the position he is taking here with regard to data,
>but never mind that for the moment. Since actual data don't seem to be
>forthcoming on the earlier question, I'd like to know at least this:
>
>Sam, what do you use for your light source for gum? I don't see it on
>your article on unblinkingeye, although I could have missed it because
>the dang site keeps sending me to amazon.com while I'm trying to read an
>article, so I have to keep going back and trying to find my place where
>I was before I got dumped to amazon. Why does it do that, Ed? It's
>annoying as heck.
>Katharine Thayer
Received on Wed Jan 14 19:59:14 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/02/04-09:49:59 AM Z CST