Re: Gum tonal range (was Miracle size for gum)
i've been wondering, is this discussion about exclusively about
one-layer-gums? i think it is.
single layers of gum have a rather short tonal scale, i think we all
agree on that. but so what? hardly anyone actually prints single layer
gums, except for testing, experiments... so with the inifinite amount of
layers i can add, the tonal range of gum is only limited by the pigment.
and the smoothness / contrast depends on how good those layers are
katharine, with your .75 density range, did you mean single layer or
the other thing is, that all tonal ranges are a continuum between black
and white. there aren't any steps in reality. even in an extremely short
tonal scale is every single shade of grey present in it. it's just a
matter of a suitable negative to print them.
or am i getting something wrong here?
Paul Viapiano schrieb:
I've now worked with several different DRs with *my* gum prints...
Although the lower DRs are great for one-layer prints, I find the
pt/pd negs (1.8 and up) give me more breathng room for accurate
separate exposures for highs, mids and lows. It's easier to divide a 7
or 8 min exposure (I use the sun) into separate components than a 1.2
neg that has a base exposure of 2 - 2 1/2 minutes.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <email@example.com
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Gum tonal range (was Miracle size for gum)
For the sake of clearness I'd add that no one had made such a
translation as I understood the conversation. The subject was "what's
the *ideal* negative DR" to print gum, and when somebody says "gum
prints 2 stops", what I understand personally is that they're making
the assertion: "gum need a negative density range of log 0.6", which
is obviously a false statement. Gum is so flexible that one can print
perfectly from a negative with a density range 0.6, or 1.0, or 1.2, or
1.5, or even 1.8 as Marek shows, (fill the rest and in between), given
the necessary adjustments in emulsion formulation / exposure and
development are made. That's my whole point - which I'm sure you'll
agree. What's best depends on the practitioner and their particular
workflow / strategy of preference. Hence the (*)s to mark "ideal"
above; there's not an ideal DR in the practical sense. Especially
after some amnt. of experience...
2009/10/12 Katharine Thayer <firstname.lastname@example.org
> I was not arguing against the use of step wedges, for heavens' sake;
> I was simply arguing against the translation of number of steps, or the
> number of "stops" to a print density range by multiplying by .15 or .30.
> Hope that point is now perfectly clear.