Thank you Katherine!
It's very comforting to know someone is watching your back. That's what I love about collaborative research (and friends
).
I was rushing to press last night so I could get started packing for a dawn canoe trip. (mea culpa: I have to set silly little goals for myself or I can be the most atrocious procrastinator.) That's also the reason the conclusion section is so weak. I'll beef it up and fix the typos after I finish this.
re:1) Ooohh yeah. It took me about three seconds to decide to take your very good advice about ditching the permanent red. Such an unpleasant shade of red. I liked the green leaves after the second yellow layer, but I really had to risk another red layer, so I dodged the leaves during the second red printing. Burning and dodging is one of my favorite parts of printing. I love making elaborate customized tools out of Cheerios boxes. This wasn't anything so fancy. The printing time ran 5 minutes, so it would be almost impossible to get a hard edge. The red on the leaves washed off in the first developer bath. After the fourth bath, I noticed there was a little red in the corner that I didn't like, so I carefully brushed it off with a small watercolor brush. I read somewhere that you can remove big swaths of emulsion while it's wet. I believe it, but I can't imagine being bold enough. I hardly like to breath on it before it dries. That's what I meant in the conclusion section about getting more sophisticated with the negatives. They
should be able to be made so that they essentially do the job of a Cheerio box tool. (I'm such an optimist about technology -or at least my ability to manipulate it).
re:2) The inks do stick much better than the watercolors but I don't think it's necessary or worth the effort. In their favor is their cost. Cheap, cheap. But what a mess. They are almost impossible to get out of the brushes and the stuff travels. It's very viscous and hard to get out of the tubes in small amounts. Having said that, I think I'll stick with the inks for the blue layer.
re:3) You're right, of course. I was following my notes in a fairly braindead state. I used 0.4 g with 10 ml each of gum and sensitizer. I initially measured out 2.5 g blue and 1.5 g violet and mixed them together, then took out the smaller amount with a couple of toothpicks. I wasn't confident I could be sure of the proportions with too small a measurement. I have the blue/violet mix in a small, covered jar for next time. Easier that way.
re:4) Yes, I think the k-layer is important if you're after a print with something like a full density range. It's a complicated little happy dance, though. The colors do (theoretically) combine to make a dark color, so the k base has to be just a tad lighter than you might think. That 'tad' is the trick, of course, and I couldn't pretend to have it figured out yet.
I'm going to work very hard at convincing people that making b&w paper isn't that hard. I've tried baking some fancy desserts that were a lot more intimidating. Could I make Wonderbread at home? Probably not. But why would I want to, when a loaf of crunchy-crusted sourdough is so much more satisfying. We'll just have to leave the Wonderbread to Kodak.
re:5) I use Photoflo 600 in my emulsion recipe and I have feeling for it like salt in soup. The 600 is not the standard Photoflo (200, I think). It's a commercial product and a much stronger surfactant. The first time I coated, the pigment mixture seemed streak, so I added a couple of drops of 600. I think now that I might not have been soaking my brush and then squeezing out the excess as well as I could have, but the 600 certainly isn't hurting, so I'll leave it in (for now, at least). PF 600 is the same chemical, although a little more dilute, as Daniel Smith Acrylic Flow Releaser (Octyl Phenoxy Polyethoxy Ethanol).
If you can think of anything else, please let me know. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Denise