Good morning all!
This may be a question for Gawain Weaver as I don't
know who else on the list is "in the know".
I have always read/thought/been told that gum along
with carbon is the most archival process there is.
I heard a comment the other day from a museum
curator who said it was "not the most archival
Now, I know that certain pigments used in the past
were NOT lightfast. Gamboge, alizarin crimson, etc. were pigments that
faded thru time we now know and the watercolor painters know, too. Also, I
know that if you leave the dichromate stain in as a darker brown addition
underneath the gum layer, through time in sunlight that image will fade to
gossamer green and therefore the print will lighten **somewhat** (found a cute
little article on that fact about gum prints "fading on the walls of
exhibitions"). But if using archival pigments and also taking into account
the slight tone difference of an added dichromate stain now that we are not
cooking our prints with heavy 100% sodium dichromates, etc.,, aren't gum prints
really archival?? Anyone have gum prints that have not lasted? I've
seen Kuehn's and Demachy's but unfortunately, photography is a relatively new
art and thus we only have about 170 years of evidence.
Unfortunately, I left my only conservation book
(thanks, Gawain) at home and I am in FL for 3 wk--writing my gum book at
Christina Z. Anderson
Photo Option Coordinator
Montana State University