U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Gum & the commercial ?

Re: Gum & the commercial ?

Chris, Thanks a lot for that mail!

>(possibly chloral hydrate or acetic acid to allow cold dev of gelatin)

I had forgotten about pH influence on "solubility" of gelatine, this calls
for a few more days in the lab :-)

Is there any best article or well referenced starting point for this
subject? (overview & history of the praxis of "gum printing") -

I have had a somehow simplified view that gum printing is gum arabic
punctum, but obviously the physical method seems more important, or
defining,  than the materials. Despite the variety of names or terminology.

I recognise some of what have been mentioned here, but that is all from
various introductions for different subjects.

These commercial "gum" papers must have been intended to use as single
layered then (?).. (Interesting, either better recipes or different ideas of
"image quality").


On 11/2/06 1:21 AM, "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net> wrote:

> Halvor,
> Yes, there were commercial gum papers.  Formulae were secret but these
> ingredients have all been suggested to have been in the mix:  gum, gelatin,
> fish glue, glucose, sugar, honey, albumen, starch (possibly chloral hydrate
> or acetic acid to allow cold dev of gelatin) and Artigue was thought to have
> been pigmented in a powder box. Artigue paper seems to have been first
> mentioned in the BJP, one source says around 1884 in existence but elsewhere
> it says 1894.  It was supplied unsensitized, and the worker had to sensitize
> with brushing pot bi on the back, or immersion. A guy named Blair also
> produced some, as did James and Saxon in 1898ish, then Mr. Johnson's
> Autotype paper, Richmond Gum Paper of Paisley around or before 1906, then
> Croft's gum paper of 1906...Artigue's was definitely the most often
> mentioned by far.
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Gum & the commercial ?