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! > > >
|