|
Oh, Marek,
I did this years ago and cannot find that I photographed
my wedges tho I did for all other things I did, so I'm on it again. I'll
do it and let you know. The more of us that test it the more we can see if
it is quantifiable. I have 3 31 step 4x5 wedges so I can do 3 side by
sides same paper, same drying time, same everything at once, just by cutting
pigment in half and then again, does that sound good? The adage is that less
pigment/longer tonal range and more pigment/shorter tonal range but I have
always wondered if, in fact, the shorter tonal range was due to choosing the
same exposure time for a darker pigmented layer that would in turn therefore
(since it might require more exposure) produce a shorter scale--which, in theory
is not really a proof of longer tonal scale. So one would have to make
sure to overexpose the step wedge on both accounts so that there would be at
least 2 blocked up steps merged at 1 to make sure maximum black is
achieved.
The deal is this, though: Sookang Kim's gums are NOT
beautiful because of some technique, IMHO, they are beautiful because 1) she has
chosen effective subject matter and 2) she has mastered the process with, I
would assume lots and lots of practice. it's like someone who is a concert
pianist--I'd love to be like them but when it gets down to it, do I want to
devote hours and hours per week of practice? With gum, yes, with pianos,
no.
I don't think there is a Holy Grail of gum nor a Holy
Secret...but damn her prints are gorgeous. What I like most about them is
that they are simple and simply lit. Like the tea bag. I, too, am
very seduced by large size, and actually very seduced by maestros of any
process.
Now she might just prove me wrong and say that she only
does a couple gum prints a year and my theory is shot full of holes, but I doubt
it.
BTW I've had a couple people tell me Livick no longer does
gum--is that really the case?
Chris
__________________
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:05
PM
Subject: RE: Printing gum with little
pigment
Loris,
Here is where the argument breaks down. What you
consider a weak/moderate pigment I might be using and defining as strong. The
only way for you to convince yourself of the validity of your assumption is to
cut the pigment concentration in half or quarter and print something side by
side. I am looking for people that have done it already and can share the
actual prints/test strips.
Marek
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009
22:01:40 +0200
> From: mail@loris.medici.name
> Subject: Re:
Printing gum with little pigment
> To:
alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>
> Thanks for sharing these
Marek.
>
> I regularly print gum from negatives calibrated for
Cyanotype, something
> like log 1.5 ES (= 15 steps with the 31-step
tablet - each step = log 0.1)
> using weak / weak-moderate pigment
concentrations, getting full detail
> starting from shadows up to the
highlights. So I definitely believe in
> less pigment = more range ->
it's in parallel to my experience...
>
> Regards,
>
Loris.
>
>
> 16 Ocak 2009, Cuma, 7:33 pm tarihinde, Marek
Matusz yazmış:
> >
> > 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
> > e
xtended 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.
> >
http://picasaweb.google.com/marekmatusz1/ExtendedGumRange#
>
>
> > 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
>
& gt; 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.
> > Marek
>
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
|