Printable View
Glen, that coticule looks a lot like my 8x3 combo that came from Ardennes by way of Howard at the perfect edge a few years ago. It is yellow but has a lot of pink bits in it and is a great stone. Of all of the coticules I have it is one of my favorites for the way it performs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
When I photograph coticules, I draw a rainbow with Crayola markers on white paper to give a sense of the white balance and color levels. I also find that using the cameras flash with auto white balance seems to help a lot.
Here is an example:
OFF TOPIC:Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
This is a long post, so I'm going to put the most important point first... I propose that if we want a system for standardized colors, that anyone photographing stones use a set of white, gray, and black cards for adjusting color balance. You can order cards from the links below, WilsonArt has free ones (shipping included) that are pretty close to commercial ones. The set on Amazon will be *very slightly* more accurate, but I don't think it will be that big of a difference for our purposes.
Now to the longwinded stuff:
The problem with getting accurate colors lies in the temperature, tint, and saturation of the photos... Most cameras will automatically adjust these things, but they are not 100% accurate. In fact, many cameras automatically increase color saturation because most photos will look better with a little more dramatic saturation and contrast. When marketing to consumers, most are looking for the camera that produces the best pictures, not necessarily the one that renders color most accurately.
All of these things can be adjusted later, if you can adjust to a known. For instance, in the pics above, your #92 brightness paper has a bluish hue to it. That is probably a combination of color temperature being too cool, and the tint being shifted a bit toward magenta. Attached below are the same images using the paper as a white point for adjustment. That *might* render colors more accurately, and it might not... It also doesn't compensate for saturation. When I've taken photos of stones in the past, if I wanted to represent them 100% accurate, I've actually held the stone up to my monitor and made adjustments to get it just right.
Now, even if I get a perfect representation of color on my monitor, it doesn't mean that you're seeing the same thing on your monitor... I am guessing that less than 0.5% of SRP users are viewing color calibrated monitors, which means that how colors render on my calibrated monitor probably don't look the same as they do on your monitor. The amount of sunlight, vs tungsten light, vs flourescent lighting in the room that you are viewing your monitor, and even the colors of the walls and carpeting will all have an impact on color rendition.
Sooo.... Now that I've written a dissertation on why we will never get 100% accurate colors of stones over the internet, here's my recommendation as to how to get them as close as possible:
1. We need to have standard (correct) white balance in the photographs. The standard white paper is on the right track... It would be best to photograph the stones with a standard white, a neutral gray, and a standard black card.
You can order a set on Amazon for $18.99: Amazon.com: Digital Grey Kard Premium White Balance Card / Gray Card for Digital Photography: Camera & Photo
OR... if you want free ones that will get you really really close, order the free sample chips from WilsonArt (get the matte ones)
https://samples.wilsonartcontract.co...e-d354-60.aspx
https://samples.wilsonartcontract.co...ea-d90-60.aspx
https://samples.wilsonartcontract.co...k-1595-60.aspx
2. If your camera can lock white balance from your white or gray card, do that. (consult your manual for instructions)
If the camera doesn't do custom white balance, then take a photo of the stone with your color cards in the photo. With a photo editing program that is capable of adjusting white balance (Photoshop if you have it) or the Gimp, which is free: GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program adjust the white balance (set the white point, gray point, and black point with the cards).
3. Adjust the saturation of the image manually to get the final bit of accuracy.
(Again, this won't get the photos to 100% on everyone's monitor, but it will get them as close as we possibly can)
Finally... If that is too confusing for anyone: If you get a set of cards, and need help adjusting the white balance I'm more than happy to help out. Just send me a PM with the photo. It's a quick and easy adjustment to make if you take a picture of the stone and all three cards together. I won't be able to adjust the saturation without actually seeing the stone, but we can at least get pictures that are closer.
I just ordered my three cards. Very fast and simple. Know I can get my colors correct using Gimp photo editing software.
Thanks HNSB!!!
I think the reason, coticules as barber hones were sold without a slurry stone is because they were used without creating slurry.
Let´s assume, that the "old " barbers didn´t buy their razors on Ebay or on a flea market.
Let´s further assume, that the "old" razor companies were able to put a shaveable edge on a razor, or at least an edge, that only needed to be finished.
If these statements are true, the barbers never actually had to hone a razor. All they had to do, was to maintain the edge by touching it up, unless they rounded it by using pasted strops (I am not sure at all, but I think that I´ve read somewhere, that those, who used pasted strops, sended the razors to the companies to let them hone). They just touched up, as soon as the razor got dull, and as we all agree (well, I guess), on a coticule, this is best made without creating slurry.
I´ve read about three or four historical barbers manuals, including the one linked above. Everything I´ve read there, supports this. No one tells something about using a series of hones.
When we hone a razor, starting with bevelsetting, we actually do the work, that is done by the razor makers. So, if we want to find out, how razors were honed yesteryears, looking how the barbers did it, is missing the point. We have to look how they were sharpened in the factory.
This being said, dilucot and unicot don´t claim to be historically correct. They might be as incorrect as lime green acrylic scales or diamond sprays are. I don´t see, why this should be a bad thing.
@ hi_bud_gl:
How would you recommend to work on a coticule, when I´m setting the bevel on it, too? Using heavy slurry, until I worked out the bevel, then rinse off the slurry and starting on plain water, using a little pressure, then finishing with no pressure, without rinsing the hone in between?
And, may I ask if you´ve tried the unicot or dilucot method? (If yes, what are your thoughts about them?)
Regards,
tok
Quote:
Originally Posted by tok
You just assumed away an entire profession "Cutlers"
Some barbers did exactly that too but not all... Also, who said people didn't use slurry, keep in mind those barber's manuals are kept simple and easy for new barbers... They are the 19th century version of the Internet also, just one person's opinion, I haven't read one yet without finding at least one or two "facts" that most consider total BS...
There is a really good Vid of a barber on youtube named Liam using a Coticule a "rubber" and doing some very interesting "pigtail" strokes... There are a few more of the same out there on youtube of older barbers using slurry on coticules...and Japanese naturals and Eschers...
I know it might be annoying to you, but there was slurry used before 2009 ...
Also just so you know, many/most razors came from the factory with what they called "Hair Tested" stamps... what we would probably call HHT, they were expected to shave from the box...
PS: Rounded bevel from pasted strop ???? Hmmmmm yeah another one of those unproved statements, in fact the tests I have done myself don't support that theory... sounds good on paper, but unless you basically let the strop sag or don't know how to strop it ain't gonna happen... One of those try it yourself and learn experiments you should do, so ya don't have to take my word for it.. :)
+1, Moler's manual, circa 1920s, says that the BBW is only for reinforcement and not for honing. Commonly held belief until fairly recently but it ain't so. The 1961 manual on stropping/honing says never strop on linen following honing. Only leather. IME linen/leather gives me better results. YMMV.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
I was told by a barber to use lather on the coticule and no more than four or five round trips with the weight of the blade. Now I know he was only refreshing shave ready razors but back then it threw me for a loop. Same guy told me "you can overstrop a razor." :thinking:
Bart explained why some BBW backings may not be suitable for honing on old coticules because of the place in the mine they were selected from and then glued to the yellow coticule.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
I tried searching on youtube and apparently I am incompetent. Glen, would you mind giving a brief description of the "pigtail stroke" or place a link to the video. Sorry for being :OTQuote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
YouTube - Razor SharpeningQuote:
Originally Posted by Fbones24
Bingo!