Re: archivalness of gum

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

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.
>
>
> Chris

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.



Sandy