My post is not meant in the spirit of the obtuse. But a circle of thought makes me wonder about Cd, Ag, and Hg in mixture, and the purported environmental terrors of it. From there I wondered about centrifuges. We hear regularly about some countries who now have hundreds or thousands of them. And finally I wondered how many centrifuges were in Los Alamos in 1944 and 1945. Did they need a thousand centrifuges? So the circle of thought brings me back to the point. Would separating the effluent metals from emulsion production be all that hard to recover and reuse? These are 3 different metals with 3 different atomic weights. And PE discussed them as elements, not compounds. Just sounds too easy of a problem to solve. I get to say dumb things sometimes too.
They are compounds. Methy Mercuric Iodide, Cadmium (halide to match the product), and Lead (halide to match the product). The matching halide could be Iodide, Chloride or Bromide or a mix. The amount used would be quite different than that used in the Manhattan project, but since we at EK had several former engineers from that project and none had any ideas I assume the subject died. And remember that Uranium Hexafloride is a gas, not a solid or liquid and that all 3 of the chemicals I mentioned are water soluble and would have to be altered somehow.
PE
If were PE, I'd sit at the bar and talk like that all night. And watch the babes come running.
I mean, they'd be kinda nerdy babes, but really brainy, and they'd probably look cute in their glasses. Right up my alley!!!
Me? I guess I would go for Medalist. Maybe Opal.
PE
I am very interested in working with experienced lith and bromoil printers to test various handmade papers for suitability. I would prefer to work with folks interested in testing a number of different papers over a couple of years time period. If anyone is interested, I'd love to discuss it. editor@thelightfarm.com. I only check email once or twice a day, so my "partners" also need to be patient!This will be "open source" research, so expect at least one Light Farm article over the course of the collaboration.
Was the "tone" of these papers consistent from shadow to highlight? Or was that what gave them their depth, different tones through the range?
While it's "treasonous" on APUG, one can get any curve one wants through digital means that ultimate expose photo paper.
You all should know that FB paper itself is getting hard to obtain let alone in several surfaces. I have samples of FB and RC papers (uncoated) in 4 different surfaces, but when I inquired about them further, I was told they were not being made.
You can hand coat papers on silk, canvas, matte and watercolor among others to make fine art like papers that you can print some pretty fine pictures on. That is about the only option I know of.
PE
There are only 2 or 3 manufacturers of FB paper. Baryta is not hard to make, just whip up a paste of Barium Sulfate in a vehicle + solvent and coat it properly along with calendaring properly. The problem is that the market for FB is so tiny compared to RC that Hahnemuhle is reluctant to make variations.
RC is far harder and more complex to make.
PE
Me? I guess I would go for Medalist. Maybe Opal.
PE
Is this kind of info in a book somewhere?
Yes, and it's excellent. Kit Funderburk was a paper engineer at Kodak and wrote a couple of short but fact-filled books. He was an early contributor to The Light Farm, and I haven't been in communication with him for a number of years, so I can't say that the following contact info will help, but give it a try. If you can't get ahold of Kit's books from him personally, you might try George Eastman Museum (formerly G.E. House) or RIT….
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?