U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Printing gum with little pigment

Re: Printing gum with little pigment

Hi Marek, thanks for posting these. I will probably have more to say
about this later, because the issue of pigment and tonality has been
on my mind for quite a while too, but first a point of
clarification: what do you mean by "long development" written on the
lesser pigent test strips; is this a different development than for
the other (more pigment) case, or the same? Thanks. BTW, I think
this is a good and useful issue for discussion, and thanks for
bringing it up.

On Jan 16, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Marek Matusz wrote:

Hi all
I was waiting for a dry spell to bring this up. A while back Judy
made a statement that printing gum with little or no pigment allows
for a very extended range. I looked back through the Post Factory
issues and really could not find examples. Hey Judy thanks for
sparking my interest.
Since I was messing around with the post-flash and was getting good
results in extending tonal range of the print I decided to do some
experimentation and actually print some test prints.

Two sets of tests are done with same water/gum/dichromate but
different pigment concentrations. I have made different exposures
and tested two development times. I used indantrone blue which is a
wonderful dark blue and non-staining. I can not see that low
pigment concentration extends the rane of gum print, to the
contrary it allows less steps to be separated on a standard step
tablet. One of the tests is also a good illustration of how
delicate highlights with dark shadows can be printed with the same
negative with the postflash.
Anybody else want to chime in. It would be great to see some
illustrations. A picture is worth a thousand words.
This contrast vs. pigment issue has been on my mind for a while.

Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. See
how it works.