Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:46:54 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
>
> My question is, if we realize that we are printing dots (that are approaching
> continous tone *VISUALLY*, not physically), then why would one wants to use
> Pt/Pd? Why don't use simple gum? This is not truly a question that I am
> literally asking. I am just saying that one could achieve the same/similar
> effect.
Well here I have to take the other side of the argument about gum & fine
detail. I'm always pointing out that gum can get everything in the
negative (pace, Pete! -- that's the Latin for peace folks, I'm not asking
Peter to walk). But it seems to me that the physical nature of the print
is quite different and that the *effect* of the print is quite different
-- at least in my methods with the two media.
To oversimplify, the pl/pd emulsion has very little body & the image sits
mostly in the paper. The gum emulsion contains pigment, has a significant
body, & sits ON the paper. There is also the colloid, gum arabic, with its
own hard little body, while pl-pd has no extra body of substance.
I also think (haven't done it much yet, just learning, but I THINK) that
there's substantial dot gain using pigment with a digital negative, which,
besides the TACTILE effect, changes the effect in other ways. I prefer
this gum LOOK to the look of pl-pd, but (I know, some people even like
pro-football) there are others who don't. However, the look is, I believe,
different.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41