Re: archivalness of gum
Hi, 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 equation? Yves ----- 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 > >
|