Re: gum question
Thanks, Judy. I agree about zone plate, and yes, I always thought
that was (at least part of) the idea with zone plate. You're right,
too, about the effects-- though I did shrink and size the paper for
that particular zone plate, I had done some others where I hadn't
done any pre-shrinking, and I didn't seem to have trouble re-
registering the negative. I guess that's only because the images were
so blurry and indistinct, anyway, that the edges weren't clearly
defined from the get-go.
I'm sure you're right about the distilled water, and I do simply use
tap water for development, etc. I had a big jug of distilled water
right there at my fingertips, though, and it seemed easy enough to
pour a little in my mix (without having to walk all the way over to
the sink-- only a few feet, but still . . . )
Anyway, as frustrating as gum printing is for me-- though not as bad
as in the very beginning-- it's sure thrilling when something turns
out really well-- or at least really well from my perspective.. I do
love the image from the toy camera, too, which has a very painterly
look (and not particularly photographic-- ouch). Oh, well.
On Jun 8, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
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
|