RE: More to see in NYC (Hint: Sookang Kim) (fwd)
I forwarded our discussion about her process to Sookang (and am going to forward getting on the list), and here's her reply... which may be clearer, and certainly more authentic, than my guesses: But I also understand that the Sepia Gallery on 24th St -- even after the current show is over -- has some of Sookang's prints on hand, and will show them on request. But anyway this discussion would make a LOT more sense if you've seen the prints... There are also a bunch of other great shows in NYC now, including at the Whitney & Metropolitan. (They probably do that on purpose when the wweather is WORST) if someone needs extra incentive to visit. J. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:35:00 +0000 From: sookang kim <sookang@hotmail.com> To: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>, alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Subject: RE: More to see in NYC (Hint: Sookang Kim) (fwd) Hello Judy and Keith, Thank you for your reply. Here's the answer to your question. I usually develop the print with high water pressure from the hose especailly when I want very rough texture. First of all, I put really small amount of black pigment in the emulsion for the prints at Sepia show. And exposed it to the ultraviolet light for 3 minutes. And put the paper into the water and left it for over 2~3 hours. The image was perfect without any grain then. At that point, I broke the smooth emulsion surface with high water pressure, which made surface rough and at the same time the image got extremely pale and weak because most of the pigment was washed away to make rough texture. That one coat was too weak to make enough density, so I repeated the same process 4 times more. The reason why I put very small amount of pigment is to make a light gray, not heavy one. I needed light gray with full density. Hope this answer is clear to you... Best, Sookang Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:39:29 -0500> From: jseigel@panix.com> To: sookang@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: More to see in NYC (Hint: Sookang Kim) (fwd)> > > #2> ---------- Forwarded message ----------> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:39:35 -0500 (EST)> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Subject: Re: More to see in NYC (Hint: Sookang Kim)> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Keith Gerling wrote:> > > Judy,> > > > I'm not being skeptical here, as I certainly trust your impressions,> > but why the need for 5 coats of one color? What do you think> > physically is different about a print when the pigment is added in> > small doses? Not that it isn't intriguing...> > > > Keith> > Actually, Keith, that's a good question... which didn't occur to me at the > time, because looking at the delicacy of the prints, it seemed perfectly > understandable. Now, called upon to *explain*, I come up with this:> > If you look at a 21- step test print of a "regular" gum exposure, you see that > gum has a short scale, with a steep slope. That is, the average strip with an > average mix/exposure has maybe 5 or 6 steps from "D-max" to paper white. Of > course you can get a longer scale by cutting down on the pigment -- and, if > memory serves, an exposure with no pigment at all could show maybe 15 or even > 17 steps of dichromate stain.> > Now I figure that these prints, with their very delicate gradation (from almost > white to a complex gray made up of widely spaced "pieces" of black, in a way > like an enlargement of pixels, except the dots aren't identical circles, but > irregular shapes, which, in the setting, function as "black"), got that way by > putting several delicate coats, all in the same black pigment, on top of one > another.> > Each of those widely spaced irregular "dots" (inflected by the texture of the > paper) is, if you get close to it, quite black, but, because they're widely > spaced, you see areas as gray, or *grays*. Just one co a t of such "dots" would > have been too weak to do much, let alone give the *effect* of full tone, or the > outlines of objects, which, in 5 coats, become "black outlines." I gather, > however, that the process wasn't something Sookang figured out and then did, > but arrived at by a lot of trial and error, feeling her way to what "worked."> > I'm not sure that's the full/best explanation, but figure it's along those > lines.... Hope it makes sense...> > Judy _________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
|