Re: archivalness of gum
Thanks, Chris. Yes, Marek mentioned that about the gum layer over
the pt/pd possibly working as sort of a preservation tool-- which is
good to know. Again, I'm really curious -- since the curator
disagreed with you about carbon and gum being the "most archival,"
did she say what she thought was-- in her estimation?
On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:38 PM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
I am not sure how much time it took to transfer, but it seemed like
decades. Also, it was a faint ghost of an image, and I would wager
that even with the transfer of some of the metal to paper in
platinum print is still way up there in archivalness, in the same
as carbon and gum.
If one thinks about it, look at BW paper--I've seen Becher Typology
Towers hanging on the walls of the Walker in Mpls that already were
brown spots and silvering out and such. And then think of albumen
that turn yellow with time. One reason gum printing was so
exciting in the
beginning was that it was an answer to the fading of silver nitrate
prints at that time--people wanted something that had more
what they were finding in a few short years was fading. Luckily I
those discussions from the early 1860's when gum and carbon came on
horizon. There is no silver to fade or fox or spot, just pigment
and paper and very little dichromate left. Well, and now some sodium
hypochlorite in Marek's prints :)
So by comparison, so I thought, gum, carbon and platinum were the
and guess what--if the gum layer is on top of the pt/pd print, it
prevent the ghosting from occurring by acting as a barrier to the
contact with the print, so in fact it should HELP with any
pt/pd may have!
Christina Z. Anderson
Photo Option Coordinator
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717