RE: Gum over Palladium

From: Loris Medici ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/26/05-02:04:21 AM Z
Message-id: <003c01c5da03$e1c7c550$f402500a@altinyildiz.boyner>

I see..

Anyway, my way of thinking was as following: Less pigment will veil the
shadows less but in the same time its effect in highlights will be more
subtle. More dichromate/exposure is for decreasing the contrast of the
resulting gum layer: if contrast is high then you will get tone in the
shadows but not in the highlights (you want the opposite). Plus, if you
don't like the effect of gum exposure in the shadows you will need some
delicate brush work - probably hard to do with 4x5 prints.

Regards,
Loris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Breukel, C. (HKG) [mailto:C.Breukel@lumc.nl]
Sent: 26 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 10:53
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: Gum over Palladium

Hi Loris,

Indeed the digital route is a possibility, am just not prepared (yet?)
to go down that road, I prefer the traditional way...

Best,

Cor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loris Medici [mailto:loris_medici@mynet.com]
> Sent: woensdag 26 oktober 2005 9:51
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: RE: Gum over Palladium
>
>
>
> This is more a question than it is a suggestion: I would try... less
> pigment and/or more dichromate and/or more exposure and/or very soft
> brush(es) to remove the hardened emulsion from the shadows (maybe
> dropping water gently with a baster?)... What our experienced gum
> printers think?
>
> My "real suggestion" would be printing with digital negatives (one for

> the Ziatype, one - modified just for printing highlights - for the gum

> layer)...
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
Received on Wed Oct 26 02:00:28 2005

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