RE: Best CI for process

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/02/05-10:20:49 PM Z
Message-id: <a06020417bf6660760d9b@[192.168.2.2]>

Eric,

First and foremost I derived it from my own work.

The scale is also very similar to what Dick Arentz reports.

What is your exposure scale for pure pallaidum?

Sandy

>Where did you get this exposure scale for palladium?
>
>Eric Neilsen Photography
>4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
>Dallas, TX 75226
>214-827-8301
>http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 10:36 PM
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>> Subject: Re: Best CI for process
>>
>> You make a very good point.
>>
>> However, assuming that the radiums of the curve is set at 2.0
>> log
>> units from 0.1 over B+F this leaves us still well within the
>> exposure
>> scale of pure palladium, which is in the 1.75-1.85 range.
>>
>> Still, I am inclined to agree with you that a better indication
>> of
>> effective printing density might be obtained if we were to
>> extend the
>> radius of the curve beyond log 2.0.
>>
>> Sandy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >If, as Richard says, the length of the portion of the curve
>> for which
>> >the slope is calculated to arrive at CI was set at 2.0 because
>> that
>> >range was deemed adequate to cover conventional printing
>> materials,
>> >does it make sense to apply it to platinum, which has a longer
>> range?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
Received on Sun Oct 2 22:21:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:18 AM Z CST