RE: archivalness of gum
<< I believe many of them are originally pigments of dyes. >> I meant "pigments or dyes." Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave S [mailto:fotodave@dsoemarko.us] > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:14 AM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: RE: archivalness of gum > > << I think gamboge, lakes, etc. are also names of tones, not > pigments, tho some pigments could be so named, I suppose... >> > > I believe many of them are originally pigments of dyes. Like > gamboge is a plant. I have use true gamboge in painting. It > is in a form of a stick (they take the liquid (sap?) from the > plant and put in in a thin bamboo trunk and after it dries, > they break the trunk to get the gamboge out). You "grind" it > like you grind an ink stone, but it is not actually grinding, > it is more like dissolving. Gamboge is not permanent, so > today it is replaced by more permanent synthetic version, so > gamboge becomes a tone name. > > Lakes are all plant dyes and so are very fugitive too. > Today's lake are indeed hue/tone names made from synthetic mixes. > > Same with indigo which originally was made from indigo plant. > It has a beautiful purple tone, but it is also fugitive. > Today's indigo is a mixture of prussian blue and quinacridone > red. Those who are used to true indigo sometimes complain > that the synthetic indigo is too colorful (the true indigo is > more muted), but this can be fixed easily by adding just a > touch of black; so today's indigo is also a hue name. > > > Dave > > > > >
|