Quoting Katharine Thayer <firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
> 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)
>>> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:58:31 -0700
>>> From: email@example.com
>>> Subject: Re: The Fresson/Arvel Process
>>> 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
>>> "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".
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dave Soemarko" <firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> To: <email@example.com
>>> 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
>>> > published information. >>
>>> > John and Chris,
>>> > Both of you are very nice!
>>> > Dave
>> Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Connect now!