U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: How many gum layers (Re: ferri sesquichlorati)

Re: How many gum layers (Re: ferri sesquichlorati)

Disclaimer: Can´t keep up with the speed an with of this debate, but had
mostly written this, so...

Hi Katharine

To me what you write sounds like a mixture of the two approaches I
mentioned, which incidentally is exactly what I wanted to hear :-)

Thought that this probably would be the approach that utilised all options
in terms of creative printing (as opposed to making copies). But have not
seen a "formal" description of it.

The methods, as described in one of the books I have, assumes normal
negatives (that is "normal" as in grade 2 silver paper). I don't think that
is particularly important as one obviously can adapt things quite a lot.

I have more or less only been printing greyscales, as in lamp-black,
Stouffer and gelatine, for the last couple of years. The way I express
things may have become a bit scaled sort of... :-)


On 10/24/06 11:32 PM, "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> wrote:

> Halvor, I've not seen either of these approaches, but neither of them
> makes much sense to me.
> I assume here we're talking about printing a negative that exceeds
> the short tonal range that gum is capable of in one printing.
> The usual recommendation is multiple printings using more pigment and
> less exposure for the shadows, and less pigment and more exposure for
> the highlights.  This works well for me. (I don't think it matters
> what order you do it in.  I like to lay in the highlights and
> midtones first, with a less-pigmented emulsion and a longish
> exposure, and then put in the shadows with more pigment and less
> exposure.  But I can imagine someone wanting to put in the darks
> first (easier registration, for one thing) and the lights second; I
> don't think it makes any difference.)
> Then there's a school of thought that says you should make a contact
> negative that brings the tonal scale of the original negative down to
> the short range of gum,  but that's never made sense to me  because
> you lose so much of the subtlety when you do that; I prefer to print
> all the tones in the original negative.  So far, the only way I've
> ever seen to get subtle  tonal gradation throughout a long tonal
> scale (with the one exception of Marek's back-printed flowers) is
> multiple printing, as described above.
> Katharine