Re: dark gums
Hi Jack, Yes, wouldn't it be great to get an "alt list" grant?? I learned the hard way about misregistration. I tried to overprint some platinums I had of my New Oreans series, and it just didn't work. Every print was off 1/8 inch, enough to be annoying. So I had to bite the bullet, preshrink arches platine, print the platinum and then the other layers on top. I found that Platine was really nicely stable once it had gone through the first preshrink process. I also found that there was less bleed/washoff with it if I preshrunk. But then when I looked at some of those prints in the archives at GEH, misregistration was not uncommon! I didn't notice any in Paul Anderson's work, finding that work quite beautiful. As far as layers, if they are printing on unshrunk paper, first the brown layer, then the paper shrinks in the first development, is it possible that they could do the black layer next and print several blacks on top that would not be out of register because the paper is already shrunk once in the development? It seems in reading that common practice was 3 layers to maybe 6, in fact, Anderson comments something to the effect that a bunch of people were printing many layers but he felt it was silly, that most gums could be had in very few layers. I don't have the source in front of me as I am playing hooky at work writing from my work computer during office hours (no students are desirous of my scintillating presence). However, I read in one or more places that they cultivated the misregistration, that is was a pictorial device. Kerik Kouklis mentioned seeing pretty bad registration on some old prints, too, but he thought it might have been unintentional instead of intentional. I have yet to see misregistration that is effective, IMNSHO. BTW that Raab work is mighty fine... Chris ----- Original Message Follows ----- From: Jack Brubaker <jack@jackbrubaker.com> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Subject: Re: dark gums Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:01:47 -0500 >Chris, > >I was interested to look for those layers in the prints at >MOMA. Many of the prints showed two distinct layers, a >medium gray and a black. These were often visible as >mis-registrations near the edges of the prints due to >shrinkage of the paper. It is very possible that the black >I saw was made up of multiple layers over the gray, but >there was never any mis-registration showing in the black >layer. This led me to suspect that there may have been only >2 coats. By the way there were gum over platinums where I >would assume the paper had not been pre-shrunk since the >platinum image was significantly smaller that the gum image >at the edges. Possibly the same use of non shrunk paper is >why the first layer of gum was so far off registration but >the later layers may have registered perfectly... > >It would be so much fun to gather several of us together at >one of these institutions that has a collection of period >prints and look and discuss what we each see in them. Let's >get a grant to do that! > >Jack > >> From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net> >> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:50:31 -0700 >> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >> Subject: Re: dark gums >> >> I think the usual number of layers around >> 1900's was 3-6, and some even did up to 15--which is >> certainly not necessary.... > Assistant Professor of Photography Photography Option Coordinator Montana State University College of Arts and Architecture Department of Media and Theatre Arts, Room 220 P.O. Box 173350 Bozeman, MT 59717-3350 Tel (406) 994 6219 CZAphotography.com
|