Re: gum question
Thank you so much, Linda. I do appreciate that. Honestly, I think
his comment stems, in part, from viewing so much digital work. This
is the downside (to my mind) of the proliferation of so much huge
digital work out there-- everybody thinks that's what a photograph
should look like. I guess. And *always* printed by the square foot,
it seems. So, while digital technology has opened up all kinds of
possibilities-- in some ways-- I think there are people out there who
just don't know what to think when they see something that doesn't
look like it's "supposed to" (ie, big, colorful, digital). My best
guess.
Yesterday, I saw an exhibit by a friend of mine, who still does
traditional b&w (silver gelatin) printing. And they were
outstanding. They were definitely printed extremely well, but they
also just seemed so unusual and unique-- like something from another
time. The images just pulled me in, in a way that digital prints
typically don't. I guess that's why they're considered "alternative"
now. They sure stood out, though, and in a good way.
And thanks for posting that link, too. Someone had sent it to me
before, and I enjoyed looking through the list and really liked some
of these. Seemed to be an inordinate number of wet plate collodion
images in there, though. I especially love Jody Ake's work. Though
I've never seen his work in real life, I've seen his website, and his
work is amazing. (I assume he's a man.) I also loved Rita's
(Bernstein) on here, and the cyanotype that looks like spider webs by
2 people (can't remember the names now). Interesting there were
several silver gelatin prints, too. They did do a good job showing
the work on the website, for sure.
On Jun 8, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Linda Stinchfield wrote:
Diana, I think your image is just exquisite-- dramatic, haunting,
and serene at the same time! Makes me wonder about your gallery
owner...
Speaking of galleries, I cannot remember if this exhibit at 23Sandy
gallery in Portland OR, was mentioned on this list or not. The
online exhibit makes it relatively easy to see the images, though.
(My pet peeve: websites with lots of words about an exhibit-- and
few or no pictures!)
http://www.23sandy.com/Resurrection/-IntroPage.html
Linda S.
On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
Oh, I bet that made for a beautiful portrait. I guess I didn't
know clay came in anything but brick red. That's all I've ever
seen. I have, indeed, heard of pregnant women eating clay and
dirt-- is that only in the South?
This particular image I've been working with today is from a Diana
camera. Of course, it's not sharp to begin with, but I was
surprised at how well it did with that one coat. I'll take a
picture of it and post when it dries. I added a yellow layer
(after sizing it after that first coat). I wish I'd left it alone,
but the yellow layer looks okay.
I did make a few gum images from zone plates. Most were a
disappointment--and, as you say, got kind of muddy or mush-like
after a few layers-- but I'll attach one I really liked. A few
people from the list have seen this already. I really loved it,
but my gallery owner here saw it and said he was "underwhelmed."
Worse yet, he was dismayed because it "didn't look like a
photograph." I don't know. Maybe my standards have gone down,
but after a lot of failures, this one seemed really successful, in
comparison. I just liked the way the colors transitioned so
smoothly, and my whites stayed white. Don't know how well this
will come across on your screen. I took the photo of the print
itself by window light with my digital camera, so take it for what
it's worth. It really is pretty (in real life)-- or, at least, I
like to think it is. This was with your zone plate cap, Sam, on my
Canon 5D. I printed this on sized (w/gelatin and glut for
hardener) Fabriano Artistico.
<SaintSebastian.tiff>
On Jun 7, 2008, at 7:57 PM, sam wang wrote:
Yes, that was me. A painter friend who made his own oil paints
gave me jars of pigments he made from clay around here. I think he
had help from the chemistry department, at least in the finer
filters. Some of these work beautifully in gum and I thought
appropriate to do a portrait of my painter friend with the "local
colors".
I think the red clay is mainly used for making bricks. It's the
lighter colors that they use for pottery, especially the white
Kaolin. No, that's not all it's good for. From the South, haven't
you heard of pregnant ladies eating clay?
I've made some gum using gold as well. Actually it's not real
gold, just brass or bronze powder. Since gum can hold just about
any fine powder, I'm surprised no one has made gum with say
powdered pearl. Just think of the the pearly effects on black
background! I used to screen print negative images over darker
background and the reversal gave it a very different feel. Have
not done so in gum yet.
Did you say you are using pinhole images in your gum? My zoneplate
gums are mostly failures - subtlety piled on top of subtlety makes
mush.
Sam
On Jun 7, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
I forgot-- yes, I do love the Payne's grey-- so subtle and such a
beautiful blue/grey. So when you say you used clay, do you mean
red clay from the ground here? Or are you talking about a store-
bought pigment? I vaguely remember reading about someone using
real clay somewhere for gum prints-- maybe that was you. There
sure ought to be some useful purpose for all that red clay,
besides making pottery.
|