Re: archivalness of gum
As far as I am concerned gum is really a type of carbon process, of the direct carbon type. I seriously doubt there is much difference in permanence between direct carbon and carbon transfer prints.
There is of course a rather huge difference in the look of a direct carbon and a carbon transfer, the former generally having a much more painterly look, while the latter has a more photographic look.
At 1:01 PM -0800 12/20/07, Katharine Thayer wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:At any rate, if archivality is determined by the pigment rather than the colloid, then I don't understand Gawain's statement about carbon being more archival than gum (assuming both using same pigment of course). Or is there something about crosslinked gelatin that's more archival than crosslinked gum? If you have any research about that, Gawain, I'd sure like to know about it, thanks.Re-reading Gawain's post, I see that he didn't really make a very strong statement about carbon being more archival than gum as I was remembering from my first quick scan. I apologize for the misconstruction.