From: stephen wasilewski (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 04/22/02-05:37:10 PM Z
My process is similar to yours minus the acetate. I
plan to do a trial of two sequential prints from a
plate burner and flourescent bank. The plate burner
is 200 miles away, so it will be planned ahead. I
hope to isolate the problem from the suggestions from
you and others. Any great findings will come back to
--- Wendy Gollihue <email@example.com> wrote:
> This is the order of my printing process:
> I lay the sensitized paper on the felt of the
> printing out frame.
> I lay a piece of acetate on top of the sensitized
> Then i put the negative in place. The acetate
> protects my negative.
> (Again, this separates the negative from the paper
> and is not apparently
> reducing sharpness)
> Then i have taped together lith film with lith tape
> to make a mask that
> will lie on top of my negative. I don't put it
> between the negative and
> It gives me the option to later print that
> negative without a mask if i wanted. I don't have
> to take all the tape
> Then i put the glass and frame on and secure it.
> My prints printed in fluourescent, merc. light and
> sunlight all seem to have
> sharpness. No apparent fuzziness.
> My printing times have come to be about 3-6 minutes.
> Is there any wrong light hitting the sensitized
> paper and print when you do
> your checks?
> Wendy (TX)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Marsh
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:28 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Reduced Platinum Print Sharpness
> Is the "unsharpness" in random areas acroos the
> whole print, or is it
> only near the edges?
> If it is near the edges it could be the rubylith is
> holding the neg off
> the paper, thereby producing the fuzz.
> stephen wasilewski wrote:
> > Judy,
> > 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
> > was printed on both light sources. The paper
> > and water source are different. Humidity and room
> > temperature could be different.
> > I still have some thought that the contrast and
> > print time that gives a low density border where I
> > have masked with rubylith may indicate a fogging
> > the body of the print.
> > Steve
> > --- Judy Seigel <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, stephen wasilewski wrote:
> > >
> > > > I first printed a negative using a printer's
> > > > burner and was very please with sharpness.
> > > >
> > > > Subsequent prinings using a flourescent bank
> > > very
> > > > reduced sharpness with some detail
> > >
> > > The question has been gone over so carefully
> > > 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)
> > > that, and Phil Davis in
> > > his article in Photo Techniques said he had done
> > > (while also
> > > "explaining" that gum is by nature "soft
> > > I, too, had lined with
> > > foil at the outset, but one day made a
> > > with the NuArc, which I
> > > was using at the time.
> > >
> > > Ooops !! (for all media).
> > >
> > > I removed the foil, which aside from whatever
> > > qualities, was very
> > > crinkly -- subsequent prints were comparable to
> > > Nu Arc, except gum
> > > prints probably less contrasty.
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and
> > http://games.yahoo.com/
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