U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: printing gum on glass (for Marek)

Re: printing gum on glass (for Marek)


It has been raining here no-stop and I have not done any printing yet. I am wondering about the dichromate concentration. Typical gum practice for paper printing uses fairly high dichromate concentrations. I was wondering if much lower concentrations would work beeter for the back exposure. Something more in line with carbon printing. I have to look up the data for back exposure on transparency that I have done last year. 

From:  Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
Reply-To:  alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
To:  alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject:  Re: printing gum on glass (for Marek)
Date:  Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:14:25 -0700
>Hi marek,
>Yesterday I printed gum on glass  with sun exposure from the back.  
>  I used plain glass that wasn't treated with any sub, or even
>cleaned  particular scrupulously for that matter, exposed for one
>minute, and  the gum adhered to the glass quite well; there was no
>flaking or  frilling of the hardened gum layer.  But the layer was
>so well  exposed that there was no image even beginning to appear
>after two  hours soaking, and I needed the sink for something else,
>so I started  brushing away at the gum to see if I could get the
>image to come  out.  The initial gentle brushing seemed to be
>revealing a continuous  tone image that wasn't noticeably softer
>than the same image printed  on paper, but then I brushed too hard
>and brushed the image right off  the glass.  I'll have to try this
>again if the sun comes out again  this afternoon.
>On Jul 19, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>>Hi Marek,
>>Hope it stops raining soon.
>>I was pretty sure I had reported that experiment to the list at the
>>  time, so I went to the archives and searched for the post to  
>>refresh my memory about the particulars. but couldn't find it.
>>Anyway, I don't remember the details exactly,  and I must not have  
>>kept that experiment since it wasn't among the gum prints on glass  
>>that I unpacked the other day; I must have scraped the gum off the  
>>glass and re-used it.   It may be that I did that print inside  
>>under the photoflood bulb rather than outside under the sun; I just
>>  don't remember.  I think there's nothing for it but I'll have to
>>do  it again to be sure.   It's been raining here this week too,  
>>although we had a couple of 100-degree days last week (that would  
>>have been the time to do this experiment).
>>On Jul 19, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Marek Matusz wrote:
>>>My typical dichromate concentrations are usuallu lower, for 1  
>>>volume of 14 baume gum/pigment I use 1/2 to 1/3 volume of  
>>>saturated ammonium dichromate solution. The dichromate  
>>>concentration definitely changes exposure, but I would say you  
>>>ball park estimate of yours and mine of about 1 minute sun  
>>>exposure would be a good starting point. It has been raining in  
>>>Houston forever and I am keeping my fingers crossed for this  
>>>weekend to get some sun.
>>>I was surprized by your comment that you lost sharpness with back  
>>>exposure through the glass. DIrect sun creates such a sharp shadow
>>>  edge that I thought there should be no sharpness loss over a
>>>thin  piece of glass. I guess the experimentation will show.
>>>Thanks for your comments.
>>>From:  Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
>>>Reply-To:  alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>>>To:  alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>>>Subject:  Re: printing gum on glass
>>>Date:  Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:17:59 -0700
>>> >Marek, what dichromate concentration are you using?  that would
>>> >  a difference, of course, to the exposure .  Also, the
>>>variation in
>>> >  intensity from place to place.  If I remember right; you're in
>>> >Houston?  Your sun is probably more intense than mine in the
>>> >  Northwest.  I lived on the coast when I last did exposures in
>>> >sun  for gum on glass; as I recall they were a minute or less
>>>with a
>>> >  fairly heavily pigmented mix of lamp black; that's with
>>> >ammonium dichromate.
>>> >
>>> >I tried exposing from the back on  regular picture glass, after
>>> >thread about back-exposing on plastic a year ago or more, and
>>> >that while the exposure worked well (the gum adhered well to the
>>> >glass with back-exposure)  the thickness of the glass between
>>> >negative and the gum resulted in a loss of sharpness and detail,
>>> >which didn't work very well  with the image I chose.  I still
>>> >that's the best way to go for printing on glass, as you say, but
>>> >needs to be the right kind of image that won't suffer too much
>>> >not having direct contact between the negative and the emulsion;
>>> >perhaps a composition depending on abstract shapes rather than
>>> >detail.
>>> >Katharine
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On Jul 17, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Marek Matusz wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Chris
>>> >>
>>> >>Good to hear the list is alive. I will miss the APIS activities
>>> >>this year. I really wanted to go this year, but something came
>>> >>last moment. As far as the gum on glass I have tried it last
>>> >>summer. I made a couple of very thin blue layers for the
>>> >>preparation for tricolour gums. With very thin layers my
>>> >>were short, and I remember long development times as well. I do
>>> >>  think I optimised it. The project was never finished as one
>>> >>my  stack of plates crashed and I never started again. I was
>>> >>tempted to do some gum on glass with the back exposure. This
>>> >>  give a nice continuous gum layer sticking to the glass. If
>>> >>have  a colimated UV light source that would be the ideal way
>>> >>make gum  on glass. Direct sun exposure is another possibility,
>>> >>which I might  try this weekend. What is the typical direct sun
>>> >>exposure (not in  the shadow) if anybody is using this method.
>>> >>good guess would  save some calibration tests.
>>> >>
>>> >>Marek Matusz
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>More photos, more messages, more storageóget 2GB with Windows Live
>>>  Hotmail.

Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!†