From: stephen wasilewski (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 04/21/02-06:43:21 AM Z
Thanks. Mine is painted flat white. Still, all
causes are worth considering. There is some basic
cause I have not found. I have only one negative that
was printed on both light sources. The paper batches
and water source are different. Humidity and room
temperature could be different.
I still have some thought that the contrast and long
print time that gives a low density border where I
have masked with rubylith may indicate a fogging in
the body of the print.
--- Judy Seigel <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, stephen wasilewski wrote:
> > I first printed a negative using a printer's plate
> > burner and was very please with sharpness.
> > Subsequent prinings using a flourescent bank gave
> > reduced sharpness with some detail disappearing.
> The question has been gone over so carefully it's
> not likely this could
> have been overlooked -- but on the outside chance, I
> mention that it used
> to be common to cover the base of a flourescent
> light table with aluminum
> foil to supposedly increase the light by
> "reflection" -- in fact one of
> the manuals (either Nadeau or Palladio) suggested
> that, and Phil Davis in
> his article in Photo Techniques said he had done so
> (while also
> "explaining" that gum is by nature "soft focus").
> I, too, had lined with
> foil at the outset, but one day made a comparison
> with the NuArc, which I
> was using at the time.
> Ooops !! (for all media).
> I removed the foil, which aside from whatever other
> qualities, was very
> crinkly -- subsequent prints were comparable to the
> Nu Arc, except gum
> prints probably less contrasty.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST