Re: gum question
Having now seen Diana's print at issue, I add a post-cript -- no no, that's *post script*! And very lovely it is, Diana, tho I am hardly surprised at the dealer's comment: But does "zone plate", which may not have penetrated these parts (or the part of these parts connected to my brain) as completely as *those parts*, EVER look "very photographic"? Can it? And isn't that the whole idea ? (Seems like a good idea, too!, ESPECIALLY for gum, which rejoices in betraying you at every coat.) In any event, and meanwhile, I modify my comments about the effect of wetting or rewetting, the shrunk paper, or reshrinking the wet paper, or sizing/not-sizing, pre-sizing, any paper, etc. I doubt those variables would show their effects as clearly with a "zone plate" photograph as they would for instance on an f64 large-format tripod exposure of, say, a sheet of graph paper or a row of pine needles or a close up of porcupine quills... for instance. I wrote... That's because, as I understand the paper-making process, there's usually a final smoothing roller plus a finishing size of some sort... Then wetting the paper (either to shrink or for the first coat) raises the nap again, unless you've sized. You get away with the first coat, but the raised nap spoils the next.Etc. etc. Tho, as noted, I doubt those points would pertain with "zone plate." As for distilled water: I've tried a number of processes with distilled vs. tap water (tho not gum)... for what it's worth, unless distilled is called for, the tap water is generally better (that's for toning, intensifying, bleach and redevelop, & similar SG processes, also cyanotype). My theory is that the extra ingredients in tap water help nudge the effects along. Judy
|