U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Freeform gum (Re: Gum printers in UK (Re: Scott McMahon gumworksho

RE: Freeform gum (Re: Gum printers in UK (Re: Scott McMahon gumworkshop, September

I see... Makes sense.

Nevertheless, I tend to include the method "separation by using the same
negative - with different colors - for multiple printings" into the
classification of "freeform" -> especially when one doesn't use stock
gum/pigment solutions (mix / add pigment by eye, instead). Additionally,
one can change the order of colors + the colors + printing times and/or
dichromate amounts to get very different results with the same

To me, only prints made [using strict separations (either duotone or RGB
/ CMYK) + using strict gum/pigment solutions + using automatic
development] don't quality as freeform -> these are simply reproducing
the printing press' actions by hand - with the freedom of choosing
colors... (Manipulating the image in development such as using a brush,
sponge, water jets / turkey baster ect... would allow the print to
qualify as "freefrom".)

Of couse, this is a highly subjective view open to discussion...


-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:58 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Freeform gum (Re: Gum printers in UK (Re: Scott McMahon gum
workshop, September

Actually, when I mused that maybe this isn't a freeform gum, maybe  
it's done with "a separation negative of some sort,"   I wasn't  
thinking just of tricolor separations but of anything that separated  
the tones into a separate negative, in addition to a possible color  
separation.  But certainly c would work too.  The question was, if  
it's a freeform gum, how was the color separated?  None of the  
answers below assumes a freeform gum, but all are certainly possible  
ways of achieving it with "a separation negative of some sort;"    
even "c" uses the negative to separate the colors rather than  
separating the colors in application or development.  (When  
tentatively defining freeform gum,  I was only thinking of separating  
the colors by selective application; I hadn't thought of separating  
the colors in development  as Damiano did; that's very well done).


On Aug 19, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Loris Medici wrote:

> Not that I think I have a better idea but will list some solutions
> that
> look probable to me:
> a) Making duotone (or tritone, or quadtone) separations. My color
> theory
> / duotone knowledge is limited, so I can't say if one could design
> duotones profiles giving results similar to the image in question...
> b) As Katharine says -> making tri-color separations... (Coloring done

> in image editing program...)
> c) Using a fairly high contrast negative and printing the highlights /

> midtones and shadows in different colors. Shadows could have been 
> printed using a fairly opaque color or a color that gives green when 
> printed over earth colors - if possible... (Again, I don't know if
> there
> are such opaque greens - or if there's a color which will give green
> when printed over earth colors... A transparent blue?)
> I would first try (c) then (b) and (a)...
> Regards,
> Loris.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 10:40 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Freeform gum (Re: Gum printers in UK (Re: Scott McMahon gum 
> workshop, September
> ..
> Hence David's question about how one would get such a nice separation 
> of the green, in the absence of the use of color separations.  One 
> possibility is that maybe that image isn't a freeform gum but is done
> with a separation negative of some sort.   Otherwise, I don't know
> how it could be done.
> Hope that's helpful, and as I said, I hope if someone has a better 
> idea, they'll say so. Katharine