[pure-silver] Re: Calibrating a colour enlarger to ISO paper grades wrt Way Beyond Monochrome
- From: "mail1" <mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:51:37 -0800
Tom, the manufacture's test equipment may be very different from what is in
your and my lab, it is important not to forget a lot of darkroom users have
little interest in the technical side, and the manufacture know this, so a
lot of the information is generalized to get the consumer "in the ball
park". This is a medium that allows both ways of working.
Besides testing papers, and developers I test each enlarger and light
source, or filter set in my darkroom. This information is of some importance
when matching the film and paper. I use this information to calculate
exposure and development times. I have notice differences in filter sets,
film, papers, and developers from different manufactures and differences
from lot to lot of same manufactures. The differences in cold cathode tubes
and incandescent bulb types, there age, temperature, and input voltage also
cause variations
I have found that it is possible for the darkroom worker with little
technical interest to get nearly all the same information with simplier
techniques.
I am fortunate to have densitometers that print out, or enter data into soft
ware that graph and analyze. I also use light meters and a PDA in the field
to calculate exposure and log information used in the darkroom, such as film
development time and negative cataloging.
Some days I don't do anything but take pictures allowing the camera internal
systems to do everything, and sometimes I use cameras that use the light
meter and exposure calculator in my head, or pocket. I develop for an
average Subject Brightness range based on the intensity of shadows, and most
of the time this works just fine.
Jonathan [mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
-----Original Message-----
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Kershaw
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 5:10 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Calibrating a colour enlarger to ISO paper grades
wrt Way Beyond Monochrome
Ralph,
I suspected as much. However it is interesting to note that ILFORD
provide the same filtration settings across the Multigrade emulsions,
possibly due to significant variation in the nature of individual colour
enlarger heads obfuscating the accuracy of any precise table of generic
(to a brand or type, e.g. Durst 170) filtration values ILFORD might provide?
Tom
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
> No, they are all different enough to justify having their own test.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
>
> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>
>
>
> This electronic message contains information that is confidential,
> legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This
> information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or any other use of, or
> any action in reliance on, the contents of this electronic message is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify the sender and destroy the original message immediately.
>
>
> P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2009, at 22:40, Tom Kershaw wrote:
>
>> Ralph,
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that. Although ILFORD gives figures for 'Kodak'
>> type filtration on 'Multigrade' papers, using MGIVRC could be a good
>> test case, before breaking out the expensive Adox MCC. In your
>> experience do all the ILFORD Multigrade emulsion papers respond in
>> the same way to filtration? i.e. cooltone, MGIV, and warmtone.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Yes, spread your range from the softest yellow to the hardest
>>> magenta you need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This electronic message contains information that is confidential,
>>> legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This
>>> information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you
>>> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>>> disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or any other use of, or
>>> any action in reliance on, the contents of this electronic message
>>> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
>>> error, please notify the sender and destroy the original message
>>> immediately.
>>>
>>>
>>> P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 11, 2009, at 20:39, Tom Kershaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whether I should test the range of 0-100 yellow but 0-200 magenta;
>>>> i.e. start with '100Y, 0M' and finish with '0Y, 200M'?
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
>>>>> Yes. What are you hinting at?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This electronic message contains information that is confidential,
>>>>> legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This
>>>>> information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you
>>>>> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>>>>> disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or any other use of,
>>>>> or any action in reliance on, the contents of this electronic
>>>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy the
>>>>> original message immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2009, at 15:39, Tom Kershaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you seen my most recent post on this topic dated December
>>>>>> 8th, with regard to inconsistencies in ILFORD documentation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct. Combining the Durst Y/M filtration values (0-130)
>>>>>>> achieves very practical contrast with Ilford, Kodak and Agfa
>>>>>>> papers. Typically, I can get around ISO grade 0 (130Y/0M) and
>>>>>>> around grade 5 with (0Y/130M). If would ignore any filtration
>>>>>>> values which gives you much softer or harder grades. You won't
>>>>>>> need them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information that is
>>>>>>> confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from
>>>>>>> disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the
>>>>>>> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>>>>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution,
>>>>>>> printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on, the
>>>>>>> contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If
>>>>>>> you have received this communication in error, please notify the
>>>>>>> sender and destroy the original message immediately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 08, 2009, at 12:37, Tom Kershaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've just got back to this topic, and will probably start
>>>>>>>> performing the tests soon. Does your comment with regard to the
>>>>>>>> DeVere 5108 yellow filtration levels suggest there is little
>>>>>>>> or no practical application to using 200 units yellow, even if
>>>>>>>> the ILFORD MGIV RC GLOSS paper can respond to such reduced
>>>>>>>> contrast levels? I read your comment in the context of tone
>>>>>>>> reproduction from a practical pictorial negative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I intend to calibrate ILFORD MG and Adox MCC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Typical paper contrast ranges from grade 0 to grade 5.
>>>>>>>>> Calibrating an enlarger far outside this range has little
>>>>>>>>> practical application. Grade 0 and 5 are roughly equivalent to
>>>>>>>>> exposure ranges of 1.55 and 0.58, respectively (see page 62).
>>>>>>>>> Since you see differentiation across the entire step tablet,
>>>>>>>>> as in your scan, this suggests an exposure range of up to 3.0!
>>>>>>>>> This is far more than you ever need.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest that you back off the yellow filtration until you
>>>>>>>>> get an exp range of no more than 1.8 and call that your new
>>>>>>>>> yellow limit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information that is
>>>>>>>>> confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from
>>>>>>>>> disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the
>>>>>>>>> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>>>>>>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution,
>>>>>>>>> printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
>>>>>>>>> the contents of this electronic message is strictly
>>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
>>>>>>>>> please notify the sender and destroy the original message
>>>>>>>>> immediately.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2009, at 20:41, Tom Kershaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Made a few inroads in the calibration process today, starting
>>>>>>>>>> with fibre base but over to resin coated paper for
>>>>>>>>>> experimental purposes: The book chapter suggests that the
>>>>>>>>>> print made from the step wedge should show areas of solid
>>>>>>>>>> black and white before any tone variation is apparent. My own
>>>>>>>>>> print using maximum yellow clearly shows (at least in the
>>>>>>>>>> print) clear tonal variation between wedges 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
>>>>>>>>>> However the white zone doesn't show differentiation between
>>>>>>>>>> wedges 30 and 31. Increasing exposure (keeping in mind the
>>>>>>>>>> DeVere is projecting a significant amount of light) makes the
>>>>>>>>>> print look muddier, with bleeding around the text increasing.
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this means maximum yellow on the DeVere produces a
>>>>>>>>>> lower contrast than maximum yellow on a '130' unit Durst.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See scan:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.tomkershaw.com/files/tp31_45_sw_2009_11_28.jpg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for asking. The 2nd edition is done. It's going
>>>>>>>>>>> through English edit and indexing at the moment. Everything
>>>>>>>>>>> has to be at the printer before Christmas, but I don't know
>>>>>>>>>>> the actual publication date yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information that is
>>>>>>>>>>> confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from
>>>>>>>>>>> disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the
>>>>>>>>>>> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you
>>>>>>>>>>> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
>>>>>>>>>>> distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in
>>>>>>>>>>> reliance on, the contents of this electronic message is
>>>>>>>>>>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
>>>>>>>>>>> in error, please notify the sender and destroy the original
>>>>>>>>>>> message immediately.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2009, at 20:51, Tom Kershaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for explaining how you arrived at the figures. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't possess a densitometer so would be making comparisons
>>>>>>>>>>>> against the R2110 reflective wedge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How is the second edition of the book coming along?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I picked eleven evenly distributed points across the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtration values to get the smoothest curve possible, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't take that too seriously. Spread them out any way you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, here is what I did:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I made two series of prints from the lowest to the highest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter setting, one for magenta and one for yellow only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I determined the log exposure range for all test
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prints and got the curves in fig.1, ranging from 0.6 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6 log exp range. I picked the filter values for every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 log exp exp range increase, and that's how I got the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eleven values, but these test input values have little
>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on the test results. They just assure a smooth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> test curve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from disclosure. This information is intended for the use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> copying, distribution, printing or any other use of, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any action in reliance on, the contents of this electronic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroy the original message immediately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2009, at 14:39, Tom Kershaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claudio,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm currently using dual filtration from the ILFORD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Multigrade data sheet, not from real-world testing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Figure 1 of the 'Contrast Control with Color Enlargers'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' gives 'Test settings'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make eleven prints from a projection step wedge as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 1. Y 130, M 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 2. Y 110, M 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 3. Y 95, M 4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 4. Y 80, M 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 5. Y 65, M 12
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 6. Y 50, M 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 7. Y 35, M 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 8. Y 20, M 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 9. Y 10, M 70
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 10. Y 4, M 95
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Test 11. Y 0, M 130
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The prints from the step wedge are then assessed with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either a densitometer or a reflective step wedge, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphed to provide the data on contrast and exposure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance. In the case of 'Way Beyond Monchrome' the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end point in filtration terms is then given for the test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper (Kodak Polymax), e.g. 'ISO Grade 2' is given as Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 59, M 15. So the multiplication factor I applied is for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the starting point of testing e.g. Y 65*1.54 = 100.1, M
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12*1.54 = 18.48.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claudio Bonavolta wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Message d'origine -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> De: Tom Kershaw <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:35:55 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sujet: [pure-silver] Calibrating a colour enlarger to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISO paper grades wrt Way Beyond Monochrome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> À: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect this message may be best directed towards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph W. Lambrecht. Reading through the calibrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' I noticed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested filtration values given for a Durst max. 130
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit enlarger are not symmetrical across yellow and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magenta. i.e. the step progressions between each value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not numerically equivalent; is this correct, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how variable are these values relatively across
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different manufacturers of enlargers? For my DeVere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5108 model I applied a multiplication factor of 1.54,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. 130 becomes 200.2 units as the filtration values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go upto '200'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's rare to have a symmetry or constant progression in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the values of yellow and magenta with a color head when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for BW multigrade paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another example with my Focomat V35 (YMC filters go up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 200) with simple filtering:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 Y200 2.24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 Y90 2.24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5 Y65 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 Y50 1.78
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5 Y25 1.41
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 ---- 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.5 M20 1.41
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 M40 1.78
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.5 M65 2.24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 M100 2.82
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.5 M140 3.16
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 M200 3.16
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Column 1: grade with Ilford Multigrade IV Fiber
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Column 2: filtration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Column 3: exposure compensation (ref. density of 0.60)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here too, you can see there is no symmetry and no linear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progression either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The factor you applied based on Ralph's own enlarger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values may or may not be correct. If you want a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive scale of contrasts, you've better to test it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a step wedge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind these filters values are not really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standardized, there are some big groups where results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are similar, but, for precise work, you must fine-tune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your enlarger. And because filters may fade with time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have to re-do it from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also that you may have simple filtering, i.e. using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a single filter at a time but this requires time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compensation, or double-filtering, i.e. using a mix of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yellow and magenta as to keep constant exposure, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split-grade filtering, i.e. 2 different exposures done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with either full magenta or full yellow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claudio Bonavolta
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bonavolta.ch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
============================================================================
==============================To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
============================================================================
=================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
============================================================================
=================================
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
============================================================================
=================================
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>>>>>>>>>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the
>>>>>>>>>> same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>>>>>>>>>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
============================================================================
=================================
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>>>>>>>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same
>>>>>>>> e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
>>>>>>>> and unsubscribe from there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
============================================================================
=================================
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>>>>>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same
>>>>>> e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
>>>>>> unsubscribe from there.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
============================================================================
=================================
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>>>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same
>>>> e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
>>>> unsubscribe from there.
>>>
>>
>>
============================================================================
=================================
>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
>> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
>> address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe
>> from there.
>
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================To
unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
