RE: More to see in NYC (Hint: Sookang Kim)

[herr unterberg <phritz-phantom@web.de>]

JUDY, i meant judy... so sorry
only the second post and already the disability to edit posts got me in trouble.

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "herr unterberg" <phritz-phantom@web.de>
> Gesendet: 03.02.09 03:34:18
> An: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Betreff: RE: More to see in NYC (Hint: Sookang Kim)


> hi july, 
> i'm really happy to get such a warm welcome. especially from you, because i've been wanting to contact you for quite some time to order the issues of the "post-factory photography" journal. are there still some left? how much would you charge for the nine + postage to europe?
> or do you have them on pdf? (of course not for free, i've read your writings on that!), just to save time and postage money.  and do you accept paypal?
> 
> i think i finally had a breakthrough in gum printing  yesterday. thanks to densitometer readings i can finally guesstimate how one sort of emulsion mix (3 gum (33%) + 1 chromat (am-di saturated) + ß.3gr lamp black powder + 15ml water) will react to exposure. in opposition to completely being in the dark before. 
> the first big step was to order enough quality materials to last me a year or five: gum in chunks, powder pigment, a paper i can afford (it's cheap, thin (200gr) - i like that, it curls a little, but it's affordable, stays under the water surface with the emulsion side up and survives an hour in hot water - and has two finishes (rough on the front, smooth on the back) ). and i currently use rabbit skin glue as a size. 
> 
> the second step was exposing a negative with two areas: one of lower density and contras and the upper half (trees against the sky) with more contrast and density. (i use inkjet-negs btw). after exposure i could see that the gum in the higher density half came off during development, but stuck in the lower density area. i compared that to the densitometer readings and finally realized that i was grossly overexposing all the time. my exposure for a rather thin neg went down from 4-6 min to 2:40.
> here's a scan of a single-layer print: http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c367/phritz/02.jpg?t=1233627472
> 
> about sookang kim:
> i guess i was more thinking of her beautiful prints of the handbags or cloth bundles, while your comment was more about the ones with the clothes on the hanger? am i right?
> i imagined her printing, for example the stripes on the cloth, like that: print the whole thing in green, then a layer in a different colour on top (completely opaque) and brush off the second colour from the areas that are supposed to be green. like a combination of one-colour prints, instead of a tri-colour rgb print (with all the colors mixing) . if that makes any sense. 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
> > Gesendet: 02.02.09 05:34:34
> > An: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> > Betreff: RE: More to see in NYC (Hint: Sookang Kim)
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, herr unterberg wrote:
> > 
> > > your descrption of the process sounds like sookang uses more opaque 
> > > coatings for her gum prints than usual. i've thinking about this myself, 
> > > to print gum like in for example woodblock printing, with completely 
> > > opaque layers of colour. is there a way of getting there with gum (very 
> > > thick gum, lots of pigment? certain pigment?)  or would it be better to 
> > > use a different process, like egg-tempera-printing?
> > >
> > > (btw. first post. hello everyone. i've been reading the list for quite a 
> > > while now (ever since wandering off into the territories of gum printing 
> > > about two years ago) and hope that it's fine to post stupid questions 
> > > every once in a while. also please be kind to my english skills, i'm 
> > > from austria). phritz
> > 
> > Hi Phritz, welcome to the list (that is NOT supposed to rhyme, and just as 
> > well, because it doesn't)... I'll also remark that, in my experience, 
> > *stupid* questions are more likely to get an answer than "smart" 
> > questions, because almost anyone can be a hero (or heroine) and "correct" 
> > them.  (Not that your question is "stupid" but that that's not a problem.) 
> > (As for your "English"... Would you like to hear our German?)
> > 
> > Meanwhile, to be serious, or semi-serious... Sookang's coats are nowhere 
> > near as opaque as your average black-pigment-in-gum print.. Tho I also 
> > suspect that "opaque" is, in this discussion, an ill-defined term: An 
> > *opaque* coat could be one that simply has more pigment in it, or, when 
> > speaking of paint, "opaque" can also refer to something with white in 
> > it... like gouache. A plain watercolor painting would generally be 
> > transparent, even if the entire picture area has got some paint on it. In 
> > fact, if I recall correctly, watercolors are generally called 
> > "transparent" on the label. (In fact, when I was a girl, centuries ago, 
> > and studied watercolor painting, any additon of white at all was a no-no).
> > 
> > However, Sookang's effects are not opaque at all.  As she explains in the 
> > e-mail below, she hoses each coat with water under pressure, so that most 
> > of the emulsion is washed off. The tones get built up by many coats of the 
> > same mix -- and you actually see more white paper between the dots in the 
> > final print than you do pigment (and than you do in any other gum prints 
> > I've seen).
> > 
> > So whatever the opposite of "opaque" would be... they are.
> > 
> > Judy
> > 
> > > 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
> > >
> > >> ____________________________________________________________________
> > > Psssst! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört?
> > > Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> Deutschlands größte Online-Videothek schenkt Ihnen 12.000 Videos!*
> http://entertainment.web.de/de/entertainment/maxdome/index.html
> 
> 


__________________________________________________________________
Deutschlands größte Online-Videothek schenkt Ihnen 12.000 Videos!*
http://entertainment.web.de/de/entertainment/maxdome/index.html