Re: Rethinking pigment stain

From: Joe Smigiel ^lt;>
Date: 12/13/05-09:36:20 PM Z
Message-id: <>


I would disagree with you on this point. My recent experiences with the
tonal reversal would be a form of "fog" to me because it is not "pigment
stain" as some areas under the coating remain paper white. The
reversed areas shift about depending on the level of exposure, yet there
seems to be an intermediate exposure that leaves the paper white without
pigment stain. It does not appear to be a random effect although I
can't explain it.

Perhaps there would be a better term than "fog" to describe it, but in
my opinion, it is not "stain."

I think of "stain" as the (watercolor) pigment doing what it was
formulated to do, i.e., paint the paper. All the sizing we do is meant
to prevent this effect and keep the paper from being painted.

"Fog" IMO is either chemical- or heat-related, or a result of
inadvertent exposure as you say. How the tonal reversal fits into this
scheme is anyone's guess. I certainly can't explain it.


>>> 12/13/05 9:38 PM >>>
I don't know all the details regarding that past discussion, but I think
"fog" is a misleading term. I consider fog to be accidental exposure,
someone opens the back of a 35mm camera and the film gets "fogged".
gum paper can get fogged from ambient light levels being too high in the
darkroom, but I've never had that problem.

Dave Rose
Powell, Wyoming
Received on Tue Dec 13 21:30:50 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/05/06-01:45:10 PM Z CST