Re: oil printing
Thanks Dirk, glad that's cleared up, with one proviso: Demachy was,
actually, a prominent oil printer. He only printed gum for six or
seven years, and then he went on to oil printing. Maybe he was the
kind of person who is only interested in something until he figures
it out, then moves on to another challenge.
On Sep 27, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Dirk-Jan Treffers wrote:
My sincere apologies for the confusion... My question indeed was
related to oilprinting. (I try to stick to the subject...). I
replied to a reply of Judy to Thijs with the subject oilprinting,
and Judy mentioned Demachy in relation to the early years when
oilprinting 'hove into view'... so I immediately assumed that this
Demachy-guy (or gal) was an expert in the oilprint process... I'm
sorry, I'm a real newby at all this. Have absolutely no idea who
this Demachy guy is, everybody keeps reffering to ;-)
The URL I tried to refer to, was the recipe on alternative
photography for oilprinting, sorry Judy, no reference to your
recipe on that site was meant on my part.
The fact that Judy just mentioned that she didn't write anything
about oilprinting, may have been the subject of my confusion.
Indeed, I got 'hit' by the subject oilprinting, since the
gumprinting I tried, but could get any satisfactory results in.
Therefore that subject got my attention. Since Judy didn't
explicitly mentioned that she was changing for oilprint to
gumprint, I didn't catch on... This is absolutely no blame on your
behalf, Judy, please don't feel that way!
Sometimes it's just a little hhard for beginners to follow subject.
And I agree, when the subject changes, people do chime in, and
usually it's clear to everone (also me) that the original subject
no longer is valid...
But luckily, Katherine 'chimed in' with the answer I was looking
for, and together with other references to oilprint, I'm a lot
further in knowledge for oilprinting than I was in gumprinting, so
you both helped along the way! So Katherine, thanx very much for
your answer. And I'll promise to keep an eye open for change of
subjects when Demachy's name is mentioned....
And Judy: Looking forward to hear from you with more details. Just
the fact that you've actually GOT articles at home the go 102 years
back makes me jealous... I don't even know of a library in the
Netherlands where I could go search for that kind of information....
Thanks both of you!
2008/9/27 Judy Seigel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Since Dirk-Jan Treffers' question referred to "the same recipe on
alternativephotography.com," where the original of Post-Factory #1
is posted, and includes my instructions for sizing in gum printing,
I assumed that that was the reference (also because I hadn't yet
written anything about oil printing). Though frankly with "oil
printing" on my mind, I didn't register the change of subject, nor
would changing subject line at that point necessarily have been
constructive, since the question was asked under "oil printing."
Not to mention that a question about oil printing concluded his e-
As for changing subject lines generally, we see here that that's a
rule, sometimes necessarily honored in the breach. (Not to mention
that with "oil printing" on my mind, I didn't think of it, tho
maybe I said that.) When I logged on earlier this evening there
were, by actual count, some 5000 e-mails subject-lined -- oops,
after a brain-drain off-list operation, I forget what, but as so
often happens, the conversation got pretty far afield, but was
lively, and interesting, or so I recall.
In sum, the rule about changing subject lines is theoretically good
(tho I sometimes feel I'm the only one does that), but what happens
in reality is that a "conversational" exchange takes place that has
no predictable subject line, folks just chime in, and inserting one
would be a discontinuity, a wrench in the gears of the kind of semi-
social or friendly and personal exchange that tends to build
community, but can't be charted in advance.
Not to mention free association. Also, that if I changed the
subject line on this "reply," the answer I provide here would be lost.
I'll add now, at 12:45 AM, that I found several references to oil
printing, too many and varied to summarize simply, and obviously I
haven't tried any of them. I will return, probably tomorrow (or
rather, later today) with info and so forth, tho I share now what
strikes me as the most important fact I gleaned. (And gleaned is
the word, it didn't present itself readily -- more proof of what
I've said so often: the trouble with how-to articles is they're
written by experts, who don't realize that the info in their heads
isn't on the page. And/or that a reader 102 years into the future
won't necessarily get all their references.)
In any event, I finally realized that when "oil printing" articles
mention "ink," they don't mean the kind you dip your quill pen
into, but *printers' ink,* generally greasy and thick, needing to
be thinned. Maybe that's obvious to printmakers, but wasn't to me.
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Dirk-Jan Treffers wrote:
Just a wondering thought: Is it on purpose that you omit the use of
in your gelatine layer? I also found more or less the same recipe on
alternativephotogrphy.com, and there also the use of a hardening
glyoxal wasn't mentioned.
Is that correct, and if so, what's the reason for that?
I haven't seen what's actually on the website, but in the actual
Issue #1 of Post-Factory (with subsequent mentions and further
testing in later issues) the sizing section (in what you might call
a "sidebar") MOST DEFINITELY has the hardening. I do NOT however
put the hardener in the gelatin, for various reasons including in
case I have some gelatine left (I vat size, so have mixed up a
heap), I can use it the next day, or put it in the fridge, and keep
for a week... also I just don't like the idea -- maybe because
that's not the way I was taught, or there really is some
difference, but IMO the hardener IN the gelatin is a PITA, with no
In fact I doubt just rinsing would avoid the glyoxal yellowing, if
it's in the gelatin, tho that's just a guess, or maybe a prejudice,
but reducing the glyoxal enough so it wouldn't yellow without being
able to rinse it as a separate coat, might possibly have a
downside. (Or, in other words, if it ain't broke, why fix it?)
And another question (you see, I'm curious)... why is that in
negative is used, while in the gumoil process (which sounds more or
same...) you need a positive....
I forget exactly what "gumoil" was -- but remember that at the time
I considered it absolute nonsense.... What the guy (whose name I
also forget) was an absolute GENIUS at, however, was PR: I don't
think there was a photo publication or a photo-related publication
that didn't give him an article....
(And that was when we had a BUNCH of photo publications !)