Re: Bleach-development with gum
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bleach-development with gum
- From: Katharine Thayer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:18:03 -0800
- Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
- In-reply-to: <038a01c833d9$7e3a9f30$0216a8c0@DSPERSONAL>
- List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <email@example.com>
- References: <001601c830dc$fe2e88a0$ffe80252@win8d24f736839><00b501c830f9$1d6d4730$0316a8c0@DSPERSONAL><00b001c83106$706ebf10$0200a8c0@DC5YX7B1><BAY133-W3564415D538D8789FC03A0BB760@phx.gbl><02486333-E894-4B3F-84A5-8025E9940144@pacifier.com><038a01c833d9$7e3a9f30$0216a8c0@DSPERSONAL>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
No, this isn't me, but it's interesting; you're the second person
who has asked me that. This was a test shot for a portrait series I
planned to do of a group of people who hung out at a coffeeshop in a
fishing village near where I used to live. I used to hang out there
myself on winter afternoons and work on jigsaw puzzles with a couple
of boatwrights. I really liked the people who congregated there and
wanted to capture them on film. I had hoped to complete the series
this winter, but alas, it's not to be, as the coffeeshop has gone out
of business. The picture is of the owner of the coffeeshop.
The picture you saw of me must have been this gum print I posted some
years ago to illustrate some point or other, because I can't think
of any pictures of me that have been published elsewhere. I took
this while testing large format film and developers several years
ago, and made gum prints of it for my kids. You've got a pretty
good memory yourself...
On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:17 PM, Dave Soemarko wrote:
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
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:56 PM
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,
gelatin/glyoxal. I've included a normal print, for comparison.
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
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
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.
for moving it back and forth is that the action of chlorox
for a few minutes and it is easy to just wash the gum layer
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,
Javelle water version) Marek
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:58:31 -0700
Subject: Re: The Fresson/Arvel Process
Thank you, Dave!
However, the only thing nice and generous about me is my butt
on it all weekend, 24/7, taking notes out of the 300+ pages I
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
formula; they were always trying to guess at it..Since Artigue
his secrets and the Fresson family doesn't seem to be willing to
theirs, it is interesting to look at discoveries before the
that might have been in the air. So this may be worthless but
"1863 Mr. Blair of Bridgend took plain paper, coated it with
dried; then next coated with albumen mixed with a little syrup,
Then floated on water and blotted and carbon powdered pigment was
onto the surface in a thin film on top of the albumen.
floating on a solution of pot bi. He did not use gum on top of
because it did not take kindly to it and it was more apt to run
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
I think that electron microscopy nowadays says that gum IS in
along with gelatin (at least, that is what I read in Chakalis'
the way this paper is described in the text is even, translucent,
velvety like the Artigue. It seems that when a lower solution of
(like 2-5%), warm or hot water development, sawdust, eau de
used, gelatin is in the paper. I marvel at their exposing the
paper for HOURS in the SUNLIGHT before developing it in Javelle.
BTW, any who may be confused about the differences between carbon
and direct carbon (not you Sandy, John, Art) of which we are
printing is the term nowadays used to refer to a transfer process
tissue of exposed gelatin is transferred to another piece of
paper, but back
in "the day" the term "carbon printing" referred to the
originally. Then the term was swiped in a drive-by for the carbon
process so towards the end of the century the term "direct
carbon" came into
use for both gum printing and such things as Arvel,
even if carbon pigment wasn't used. So when researching I always
xerox articles that talk about pigment printing, carbon printing,
carbon, bi-gum, gum-bichromate (that little hyphen becomes
searches), etc. Direct carbon was not transferred to another
piece of paper
hence the operative word "direct".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Soemarko" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
experiment with the Direct Carbon system by pointing them
published information. >>
John and Chris,
Both of you are very nice!
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Connect now!