Re: gelatin

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/21/05-01:12:54 PM Z
Message-id: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0510211500040.16656@panix3.panix.com>

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Anne van Leeuwen & Peter Hoffman wrote:

> I've read some talk here that gelatin is not necessarily good. I wonder what
> that is about?

What it's about is what the tests show. For instance, my tests showed
that a gum print on paper that's been wet and dried -- just about any
paper -- without an added size, doesn't print as well, for my printing
methods. They also show that gelatin size without a hardener added doesn't
print as well in gum, for my printing methods. Etc.

I also found that of a dozen or more cyanotype size/no size tests I did, a
gelatin size, hardened or not, always made an inferior print. A starch
size *sometimes* made an equivalent print, but never better, and starch
size is also a PIA.

"Print as well" in these cases means things like D-max, smoothness, tone
and/or scale, or other characteristics of the medium.

But these are my conclusions for my papers and my print ideas, and may not
hold for anyone else -- especially on handmade paper which may well be sui
generis. However, my tests were with 21-step sensitivity guides which,
whoever is testing and however they test, tell more than an "image"
negative, which is, no matter how "beautiful" it may be or print,
essentially random density.

Judy S.
Received on Fri Oct 21 13:13:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:19 AM Z CST