Re: ironing gum prints and other musings

[Michael Koch-Schulte <mkochsch@shaw.ca>]

The old "analog" gum pigment test was OK when people still were using 
film (if you could get it to work with your gum brush) but you really 
have to try the new "digital" gum pigment test to appreciate how far 
we've come Sandy. I believe version 3.01 is the one you want. Way way 
better than 2.0 (which was a tad buggy with yellows)! And to date, at 
least to my knowledge, no one has argued about the results because, 
obviously, they're digital (read: unchanging and reproducible each 
time). What will Epson think of next? The digital paperless toilet? 
(Dare to dream. Dare to dream.)

~m

Sandy King wrote:
> Ahhhhh, the old gum pigment test. Now that bring back a lot of 
> memories from the past.
>
> Just wondering, was there ever a consensus as to whether it actually 
> works or not?
>
> Sandy King
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 3:20 PM -0400 5/3/08, Judy Seigel wrote:
> >
> > PS. The "literature" gives a fair sampling of the level of mainstream 
> > publishers' books on "alt", as reviewed in various Post-Factory's -- 
> > for instance Robert Hirsch's chapter on alternative processes has 
> > some world-class idiocies, not from actual testing or printing, but 
> > from mental telepathy while chewing on a color chart.  Ditto for John 
> > Schaefer's "Ansel Adams Guide II" -- IMAGINE: in the name of Ansel 
> > Adams (tho maybe it serves him right?) as reviewed in an early P-F by 
> > John Rudiak & myself.... And those are just the two that leap to 
> > mind.  (Something tells me I may have mentioned the "gum-pigment 
> > ratio test" -- religiously cut and pasted right down the line -- 
> > already.)
> >
> > PS.  Chris, who is  Sarah Vowell?
> >
> > J.