Thanks, Don (can you tell I am sitting here gnashing my teeth while doing a
Blurb book on Haiti and trying to use every diversion that comes my way?)
for not only looking but also commenting.
The photographs were taken mostly by my mom and my dad--the old ones--but on
the Family of Origin page I have taken a lot of those, too, as I have
intertwined the old with the new. You can tell the old ones because of the
dust and mold. I also have photographs taken by my grandparents and the
25,000 ones I inherited range from about 1920's to 1970's, but mostly only
to the 1950's. Somewhere in there my mom stopped taking Kodachromes and
started taking color negative/prints. Much inferior product. Anyway, those
four kids entangled with a snake (can you believe she allowed that and told
them to smile?) are my oldest siblings in my family of 8.
Some of the images are SO Lartigue I can't believe it. One of my mother
bending down in the garden, butt stuck up in the air. No wonder I'm warped.
Chris
__________________
Christina Z. Anderson
http://christinaZanderson.com/
__________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Sweet" <don@sweetlegal.co.nz>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Ruined 3rd tricolor gum print! Grrrr...
> Chris
> What a charming gallery. I have been reading about using Photoshop to
> salvage old photos, but this is a far more attractive way to revitalise
> them. Who was the original photographer (reminiscent of JH Lartigue)?
> Don Sweet
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Ruined 3rd tricolor gum print! Grrrr...
>
>
>> Loris,
>> You are right to cut down phthalo. It is an incredibly concentrated
>> pigment. However, I develop it longer if it is too strong and that seems
> to
>> help.
>>
>> Flaking--your layer is too thick with not enough exposure, but also the
> base
>> layers beneath have created more of a slippery surface for the final
>> layer
>> to hang onto. Thus you could thin out the final layer and brush it on
> very
>> carefully. I might thin it with, let's say, 2 di: 1 gum/color. This will
>> make the layer faster because of the increased dichromate and thinner
> layer
>> but that may help you even more.
>>
>> The thing about gum is it is never a done deal--scrape off the layer and
>> start again.
>>
>> What is ironic is just as you are dealing with this as a problem, I am
>> encouraging it. This latest series of gums I am doing is the least
>> photographic series I have ever done. I am working with old family
>> photographs/glass slides that are wrecked and molded. Thus the images
> can't
>> get much worse.
>>
>> I am attempting them to look more like silkscreens. Thus, I print two of
>> the same image at once, and one I leave photographic and then one I have
>> been scraping away areas of color and then printing other layers on top.
> I
>> am REALLY loving it, but then again I won't have any idea of the
>> reception
>> of the prints. People may not like them at all. But I am finding that I
> am
>> putting the play back into gum printing and embracing mistakes.
>>
>> At the risk of intense criticism, I am including the first image I did of
>> this series in both the non scraped and scraped form. Be kind. BTW all
> the
>> dust and mold? Like I said, that is imbedded in the glass slide image.
>> Slide is probably about 50 years old. And this slide is actually one of
> the
>> ones that is in BETTER shape.
>>
>> If you click on the link below you will come to the Family of Origin
> gallery
>> and at the bottom left are the two images first in the row.
>>
>> http://christinaanderson.visualserver.com/portfolio.cfm?nK=5571&nS=12&nL=1
>>
>> SO what I am saying to you is that the print that just flaked and looks
>> yukky, if you can't salvage it, scrape and print another layer on top, or
> at
>> the VERY least do NOT throw it away. Keep it for later because you may
>> realize it is pretty interesting stuff.
>> Chris
>> __________________
>>
>> Christina Z. Anderson
>> http://christinaZanderson.com/
>> __________________
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Loris Medici" <mail@loris.medici.name>
>> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
>> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 7:34 AM
>> Subject: Ruined 3rd tricolor gum print! Grrrr...
>>
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'm trying tricolor gum printing using plain paper negatives.
>> >
>> > I start with yellow (Schmincke 208 Aureolin Modern PY151
> Benzimidazolone),
>> > then I print the magenta (Schmincke 351 Ruby Red PV19 Quinacridone Red)
>> > and everything (tonality, smoothness, color) is good & nice up to
> here...
>> >
>> > As the last layer, I print the cyan (Schmincke 479 Helio Cerulean
>> > PB15:3
>> > Phtalocyanine Blue) and somehow it's too overwhelming, very uneven, and
> it
>> > flakes like crazy!
>> >
>> > Pigment amounts are as following:
>> > 1. Yellow, pea sized, into 3.75ml gum + 3.75ml dichromate
>> > 2. Magenta, lentil sized (read as: half of yellow), same as 1
>> > 3. Cyan, lentil sized (same as magenta), same as 1
>> >
>> > Exposure times and dichromate amounts are the same for all three layers
>> > (15mins., 20% ammonium dichromate). I use automatic development for 30
>> > minutes, sometimes a little longer according to how it looks.
>> >
>> > I don't know why I'm having this problem but will try to (all
>> > together):
>> > a) Print in the opposite order (1. Cyan, 2. Magenta, 3. Yellow)
>> > b) Use even less cyan pigment to match the color intensity of previous
>> > layers
>> > c) Try to not panic while struggling to coat an extra even cyan
>> > layer...
>> >
>> > What can you say? Any ideas on why I'm stuck that way?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> > Loris.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>