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

Re: archivalness of gum


Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be appropriate to also consider the gelatin
and/or whatever else is used with the pigment(s) in the archivalness


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: 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.
> >
> >
> >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