U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Bleach-development with gum

RE: Bleach-development with gum



Katharine,

Is that a picture of you? I have seen your picture somewhere (I can't
remember when or where. It has been a few years). This pictures looks a
little familiar.  


Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:56 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Bleach-development with gum
> 
> This isn't working very well for me; I don't know why.     I've  
> posted a couple examples from  an afternoon's efforts.
> 
> The main dilemma seems to be that if I leave the print in the 
> bleach for longer periods of time (10-15 minutes)  I get 
> blotching and mottling of the image, (both with highly 
> pigmented and normally pigmented mixes of lamp black) but if 
> I soak it in the bleach for shorter periods of time (1-5 
> minutes) then development is too slow  
> for my patience.   Perhaps I've overexposed too much at 3x normal,  
> but I wouldn't have thought so.   The bleach I'm using is Western  
> Family brand; ingredients are listed only as Sodium 
> hypochlorite 6%, "Other ingredients" 94%.  I've used it 
> diluted at 15ml/liter of  
> water.   Gum coating mix is, as always, 1 unit gum/pigment: 1 unit  
> saturated ammonium dichromate.  Arches bright white paper, 
> sized with  
> gelatin/glyoxal.   I've included a normal print, for comparison.
> 
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/Bleachdev.html
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 27, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Marek Matusz wrote:
> 
> > Very interesting thread. I was in the Big Bend NP hiking and taking 
> > pictures, happy without a computer or cel phone for a few 
> days. I only 
> > got to read some of the emails now.
> > Here is my comment from the practical standpoint of a gum printer.  
> > My one coat gum prints have eveloved to a practice that 
> gives maximum 
> > darks and long (relative) tonal range of the final print (not to be 
> > confused with long negative density range). Some of my prints were 
> > included in the travelling portfolio last time around.
> > Here is a description of my pratice.
> > Coat the paper with gelatine / harden it.
> > FOr the gum layer I prefer highly pigmented carbon black.
> > Use longer exposure (3 to 5 times normal exposures). I 
> really have not 
> > tried to push it even further.
> > Soak in water to remove dichromate.
> > Develop in a weak chlorox solution. My dilution is about 20 
> cc/ liter 
> > of water. Could be as little as 10cc if I want slow action 
> or as much 
> > as 40 to 50. Once the print starts bleeding the pigment I 
> place it in 
> > water and watch for a few minutes following the development. If the 
> > development is slow, dip back in chlorox for a few minutes. 
> The reason 
> > for moving it back and forth is that the action of chlorox 
> continues 
> > for a few minutes and it is easy to just wash the gum layer 
> > completely.
> > Actually I use this method a lot for my tricolor gum prints as well.
> >
> > How close is that to direct carbon? I call it gum, but it 
> has all the 
> > ingredients mentioned in this discussion, geletine, gum, 
> chlorox (or 
> > Javelle water version) Marek
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:58:31 -0700
> > > From: zphoto@montana.net
> > > Subject: Re: The Fresson/Arvel Process
> > > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> > >
> > > Thank you, Dave!
> > >
> > > However, the only thing nice and generous about me is my butt
> > after sitting
> > > on it all weekend, 24/7, taking notes out of the 300+ pages I
> > took digipix
> > > of at Geo Eastman House. But it is DONE!!! One further milestone.
> > >
> > > Snippet from an 1896 book I told you I'd share about a possible
> > Artigue
> > > formula; they were always trying to guess at it..Since Artigue
> > died with
> > > his secrets and the Fresson family doesn't seem to be willing to
> > share
> > > theirs, it is interesting to look at discoveries before the
> > Artigue paper
> > > that might have been in the air. So this may be worthless but
> > what the
> > > heck:
> > >
> > > "1863 Mr. Blair of Bridgend took plain paper, coated it with
> > gelatine and
> > > dried; then next coated with albumen mixed with a little syrup,
> > and dried.
> > > Then floated on water and blotted and carbon powdered pigment was
> > brushed
> > > onto the surface in a thin film on top of the albumen. 
> Sensitized by 
> > > floating on a solution of pot bi. He did not use gum on top of
> > the gelatin
> > > because it did not take kindly to it and it was more apt to run
> > together
> > > under the operation of the brush and leave small blank spaces,
> > and was also
> > > tackier under moisture, and took up too much pigment." (not a
> > direct quote)
> > >
> > > I think that electron microscopy nowadays says that gum IS in
> > Fresson paper
> > > along with gelatin (at least, that is what I read in Chakalis'  
> > patent) but
> > > the way this paper is described in the text is even, translucent,
> > and
> > > velvety like the Artigue. It seems that when a lower solution of
> > pot bi
> > > (like 2-5%), warm or hot water development, sawdust, eau de
> > Javelle are
> > > used, gelatin is in the paper. I marvel at their exposing the
> > direct carbon
> > > paper for HOURS in the SUNLIGHT before developing it in Javelle.
> > >
> > > BTW, any who may be confused about the differences between carbon
> > printing
> > > and direct carbon (not you Sandy, John, Art) of which we are
> > talking, carbon
> > > printing is the term nowadays used to refer to a transfer process
> > where the
> > > tissue of exposed gelatin is transferred to another piece of
> > paper, but back
> > > in "the day" the term "carbon printing" referred to the 
> gum process 
> > > originally. Then the term was swiped in a drive-by for the carbon
> > transfer
> > > process so towards the end of the century the term "direct
> > carbon" came into
> > > use for both gum printing and such things as Arvel, 
> Artigue, etc.  
> > papers
> > > even if carbon pigment wasn't used. So when researching I always
> > have to
> > > xerox articles that talk about pigment printing, carbon printing,
> > direct
> > > carbon, bi-gum, gum-bichromate (that little hyphen becomes
> > important in
> > > searches), etc. Direct carbon was not transferred to another
> > piece of paper
> > > hence the operative word "direct".
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dave Soemarko" <fotodave@dsoemarko.us>
> > > To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 AM
> > > Subject: RE: The Fresson/Arvel Process
> > >
> > >
> > > > << There are no immediate plans on my agenda to make the
> > process I use
> > > > available on the market. But like yourself I am willing to help
> > others to
> > > > experiment with the Direct Carbon system by pointing them
> > towards relevant
> > > > published information. >>
> > > >
> > > > John and Chris,
> > > >
> > > > Both of you are very nice!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Connect now!
> 
> 
>