U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: ironing gum prints and other musings

Re: ironing gum prints and other musings

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.)


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?