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 negative... 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... Regards, Loris. -----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). kt 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 > >
|