Re: archivalness of gum

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

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.

Sandy King



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.
> kt
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Gawain Weaver wrote:
> > Leaving the definition of archival aside, my vote is for carbon, 
> > though certainly gum is no slouch. And neither is sulfur toned 
> > gelatin silver (in fact, I might change my vote to sulfur toned 
> > gelatin silver). Platinum is great too. Though carbon does have 
> > that cracking in the dmax problem in some examples of it, and 
> > platinum has the occasional staining/yellowing problem. I'm afraid 
> > I haven't seen enough 100+ year old gum to really comment. The only 
> > problems I've seen on gum we're environment issues-mold, fly 
> > specks, etc. As usual with these things- it depends.
> >
> >
> > Gawain