U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: archivalness of gum

Re: archivalness of gum

At 7:51 AM -0700 12/21/07, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:

Judy, you are absolutely right about "carbon carbon" and this was questioned long ago (1800's), why call something (either the gum version or the gelatin version) carbon when carbon was only one of MANY possible inclusions to use? HAHAHAHA gum got smart, carbon printing didn't :). It ditched the name "direct carbon" centuries ago.


I guess we could stipulate that the term carbon, or carbon transfer, is misleading if the tissue does not actually contain any carbon pigment. For the record, my monochrome carbon prints always contain some carbon pigment since that is the base from which I start and then I may or may not add other colors. Generally the carbon pigment accounts for at least 60% or so of the total pigment.

Pigment transfer would probably be a better all around term for carbon transfer printing, but at this stage of its history I believe the term carbon is going to stick.