P.S. I kind of like the melting softness that's achieved by printing
through the back of the mylar.
kt
On Apr 10, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> Okay, I've coated a very thick, very heavily-pigmented gum emulsion
> on mylar and printed it from the front and from the back. A couple
> of comments before I give you the URL:
>
> (1) though the emulsion was very heavily pigmented, two things
> resulted in not a very deep DMax: (a) the fact that I used ivory
> black, a transparent pigment (if I were to do it again, I'd use
> lamp black) and (b) the fact that it's printed on a transparent
> material and was scanned as a transparency, with the light shining
> through it. But the thing to note is, be that as it may, the DMax
> is about the same in both prints.
>
> (2) there's a light brown pigment stain (ivory black is a brownish
> black) in both prints that is probably a function of the heavy
> pigmentation. It hardly shows in the prints themselves, but for
> some reason was accentuated in the scanning.
>
> (3) I don't honestly know what to make of the results. If you look
> just at the prints on mylar, you'd have to conclude that back-
> printing is much superior to front-printing, at least for a thick
> coat on mylar. But if you compare the back-printed print on mylar
> to the regular front-printed gum print (using a less heavily-
> pigmented emulsion) on paper (at the bottom of the page), it's hard
> to claim that the back-printed print is superior. But since they
> are on different materials, it's apples and oranges.
>
> So I guess if I were forced to draw a conclusion from this rather
> inconclusive test, I'd say that if you are going to print on mylar
> using a very thick and heavily pigmented emulsion, then you'll
> probably do better printing from the back. But if you're printing
> on paper, you can get fine results printing from the front with a
> less pigmented emulsion.
>
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/topdown.html
>
> Katharine
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 10 13:27:52 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/01/06-11:10:24 AM Z CST