Re: Eastman House gum prints

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:

> I was most impressed by Paul Anderson's work (Judy,  this is for you).  I was 
> surprised I would feel that way.  I have seen reproductions in magazines of 
> his work and thought they looked crummy but in person they are dark, moody, 
> evocative, and juicily glossy.  I now understand why people trusted his gum 
> advice--the proof was in the pudding so to speak.  I notice in a number of 
> them details were supressed--in other words, the face was somewhat not there. 
> Now, I know that gum will print every teeny detail you could possibly want, 
> including those microbanding lines that happen when you don't clean your 
> print heads, so I can't imagine this wasn't deliberate.  And it was really 
> beautiful.  Unless the negative were so blown out in the highlights he could 
> not get detail to ever print there...but I think not.
Chris, I don't really blame Paul for gum pigment ratio test disease... 
anyone can make a mistake ("To err is human": A. Pope) and what he did in 
a relatively short period BEFORE the internet is very impressive.  I have 
his book on Pictorial Photography (marked "out of print" & bought for 
$12.50 at Strand before pictorial became the thing), have read it at least 
twice and appreciate MUCH of its content. I blame the lazy cut-and-pasters 
who appropriated it, usually WITHOUT credit, and obviously without 
checking or testing...

And I don't really blame Henney & Dudley whose 1939 "Handbook of 
Photography" became the source from which error proceded, like the swamp 
with the e-coli in it that infected the country.  They were Kodak-type 
engineers... their "handbook" was Kodak-type info, for Kodak type 
procedure. They imported this already obsolete "pictorialist" to give 
their book the flavor of inclusivity.  They couldn't be blamed for not 
testing every step... in fact wouldn't have known how. (As explained P-F 
#9.)

But I do blame the authors in OUR time, making money by selling books 
as "experts," who copied and pasted that "test," without any sense 
that they should -- and could-- TEST what they were selling as fact, by 
implication their own !!!!

Including, but not limited to:

Keepers of Light (gets a sort of pass as pioneer, however)

John Schaefer in his (hold your bonnets) Ansel Adams Guide Book Two, 
"assisted" by David Scopick.

David Scopick, who, having copied the "system" in his own 2nd edition, 
when signalled about my heresy by a fellow from this list (whom I now 
spare), forwarded a message to the list that I shouldn't have said 
anything in public, but should have gone to him privately and he would 
have "helped" me with it.

Several subscribers to this list, especially one I decline to name at this 
moment, who -- instead of hying to their own studios to check my point, 
professed themselves ***shocked*** that I dared defy a "known authority." 
(Of course artists are born to defy authority, but that's another e-mail.)

And several lesser books of the 1970s & 1980s about art photography 
techniques, which also reprinted the test, uncredited... tho I can no 
longer name them -- shelf space in a city apartment is precious.

But, as noted, I've wondered about our obsession with "stain" in our time, 
which, in 100 years of gum literature is muted at best. Here's my theory:

Pictorialists came to gum printing from Pictorialism, when the aesthetic, 
as here described by Chris, was tone over everything, details suppressed, 
general softness, and little if any sharp contrast.

Current, shall I call them "latter day"?, gum printers come from silver 
gelatin printing where sharp contrast, sharp detail and ABOLUTE WHITES are 
not only normal, but even required.

> Either he or another did a really neat idea--it was a gum print in 
> duotone--first layer pale brown fully printed, second and subsequent black, 
> and then it looked like either white chalk was added on top in the highlight 
> areas or even perhaps a POSITIVE was printed in white on top of the image. In
I have printed a light coat of white, or pale blue on an image with the 
positive... brushing out in areas: Where it works it's fabulous...

> And then, of course, the Michallet paper that had very distinct lines 
> throughout it that in my opinion are distracting. You can see this in 
> Kasebier's prints, among others.
That Michallet paper is still available (or was about 5 years ago -- it's 
sold for charcoal drawing) ... I bought some at NY Central & gum printed 
on it. It took gum WONDERFULLY, but, alas, the lines were so dominant it 
didn't work for today's aesthetic.

> Speaking of paper, it seemed in vogue to deckle the gum print to the very 
> edge of the printing, so no white paper showed.  And then that seemed to be 
> mounted onto a backing board.  Sometimes a black pinline was drawn in around.
>
> I was not as impressed by Kasebier's gums, which also surprised me.  She went 
> so far into the charcoal drawing effect, but her shadows were blocked up so 
> much that cows and people's clothes looked flat and not volumized like a 
> charcoal drawing would.
There are some swell Kasebier gums in Barbara Michaels' book. Some with 
the negative quite creatively touched up. But... often as not these things 
are "fixed" in the printing. (Wasn't it a shock to visit frescos in Italy 
we'd only seen in the Skira books??? Was to me... they were flat and the 
colors were dull.)

> What seeing all the work made me realize is that I want to go back to print 
> monochrome gum from BW negs again....most of the work was soft focus, DARK 
> DARK, moody, evocative, of course the reigning aesthetic of the time.  And, 
> of course, no tricolor to speak of, (except one of Livick's, Ives, and 
> manufactured color in Ravell's by painting with watercolor) due to the need 
> to manufacture 3 separation negs in the darkroom.  How easy we have it.
Of course Livick is our time... don't lump him in with Ives... But his gum 
prints were mostly wonderful, however he made them.

Meanwhile, mmmmmm, enjoy1

Judy