U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: "Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed

RE: "Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed




Using a cyanotype blue image as the base is not cheating in my opinion. In fact, I find the suggestion that this is cheating about as silly as the idea that the use of digital negatives to make carbon and platinum prints is cheating, which I have heard.

It is simply a variation of the process and a print made with a cyanotype base is still a gum print IMHO. And the variation has a very long pedigree. E.J. Wall in his History of Three-Color Photography (1925) notes that people were making gum prints with a cyanotype base as early as 1904, and describes the working procedures in his section on tricolor gum.

However, the absurdity that has been introduced into this discussion is the implication that folks like Chris Anderson and San Wang only know how to make three-color gum prints with a cyanotype base. Sam Wang was making three-color gum and cassein prints with gum and cassein blue layers as far back as I can remember, and if memory serves, Chris Anderson was also working primarily with a blue gum base before coming to Clemson and falling under Sam's evil influence. In fact, off the top of my head I would venture to suggest that Sam has probably made a lot more serious three-color gum prints with a blue gum base than KT. He worked that way for a long time and he has always been a fairly prolific printer.

I think it is reasonable for folks to want to discuss the minor differences in look between prints with a blue gum base and those with a cyanotype base, but I personally find these differences too small to justify the remark made earlier that a three color print with a cyanotype base and two gum layers is not a real gum print.

Sandy King







At 5:39 PM -0600 1/28/07, Keith Gerling wrote:
I often print gum over cyanotype.  And I love the work of Chris and Sam.
That said, I still cannot help but feel that using cyanotype for the first
layer IS cheating if one is going to call the final result a "gum print".
There is just so much more THERE when you incorporate cyanotype into the
mix.  In one step you address two "problems" often inherent in the gum
process:  one can (or at least I can) add much finer detail and far more
density.  I'm by no means a Puritan when it comes to making images.  I don't
believe in rules and I like to incorporate as many tricks and techniques as
I can.  But still, when I have completed a set of gum-over cyanotypes, I
cannot help but come away from it with the thought that what I have here are
Colored Cyanotypes not Gum Prints.  I'm not by any means suggesting that it
is dishonest in calling a cyanogum a gum print, but I am suggesting that we
remain sensitive to those that wish to remain "true" to the notion of "pure
gum".  Speaking for myself, I think using cyanotype in gum is kind of like
turbo-charging your VW.  Nothing wrong with it, plenty of people do it, it
sure packs a lot of punch - but don't go thinking you are operating a stock
vehicle.  Dumb analogy, I know, but I've been spending far more time
addressing vehicular issues than photographic issues....




-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Bloomfield [mailto:dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 2:52 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: "Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed


I probably shouldn't jump in here as I really know very little about
actual gum printing (except for the excellent teaching of the gum
over platinum course I took last fall with Kerik).  I also appreciate
Clay Harmon's gum over platinum information on the Unblinking Eye
website. But I have been interested in gum printing for a while--
mostly just reading about it and seeing the work of other gum
printers.  So I'm interested in the tri-color gums and the difference
between how a tri-color gum print might look, compared to 2 or more
colors over cyanotype, and why someone might make that choice.  I
assume it's just easier, but I also assume there may be other reasons..

I had the opportunity, some months ago, of seeing DeCosse's gum
prints in the John Stevenson gallery.  At the time, I had no idea
that Keith Taylor did the actual printing.  I thought they were
spectacular--and seemed almost heroic in the effort it must take to
produce prints so exquisite.  They were also very very different from
gum prints I'd seen elsewhere over the years.  So while I am sure
that other factors are involved in the printing of those, I also
wondered about the "true" tri-color gum layers he uses, as opposed to
2 gum layers over cyanotype others might use, and how that choice
might effect his gum prints (or not).

At any rate, I have also read Katharine's site, which I find helpful
and informative, too.  Katharine herself has answered some questions
I've had in the past, and while I'm sure it's obvious to her how
little I know about gum printing, she has always been forthcoming and
generous with her knowledge and in her answers to my questions.

So I think what she's asking is an interesting question and one I
don't often see discussed.  Why wouldn't everybody simply use
cyanotype as the base layer?  It makes sense to me, (and I've never
gotten the impression--here or anywhere-- that this was somehow
"cheating" or less worthy than using 3 actual layers of gum..)
Obviously, though, there's a reason some wouldn't.  I'm curious to
know why those printers wouldn't, how their prints might appear in
comparison, who those printers might be, and their approaches to
their work.

Gum printing seems to offer infinite possibilities.  For those who
are intimately familiar with gum printing, Katharine's question and
the distinction she's making might seem pointless.  For the rest of
us, however, that distinction might prove useful--or, at the least,
an interesting observation/comparison.

Just my 2 cents.

On Jan 28, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Keith Gerling wrote:

 Hey, I've got an idea.  How about we just take Katherine at her
 word that
 she is looking for people that approach the process as she does,
 which means
 LITERALLY "three colored gums".  I was excluded because I use CMYK
 separations.  As a person who uses gum in all sorts of
 configurations: with
 cyano, with vandyke, three and four gum layers, etc., I would
 venture to say
 that there is a heck of a lot more similarity between three and
 four color
 gum printing than there is between gum over cyanotype and this
 should be
 obvious to anyone that has explored the various options.  Still, I
 didn't
 make the cut, and I'm not interpreting Katherine's motives as being
 sinister
 or "biased".

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
 Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:07 AM
 To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
 Subject: Re:"Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed





 When I saw KT's survey my first reaction was, why in the hell would
 someone think it important to make a distinction between "true gum"
 prints and full color gum prints that use a cyanotype layer? Then I
 thought, wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Chris
 Anderson uses a cyanotype layer in her three-color prints, and she
 also is an unabashed proponent of the use of carefully designed
 curves?

 I have no idea what Katherine's true motives are, but hopefully she
 will at least provide the list with her definitive definition of a
 "true gum".

 Sandy King