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

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, herr unterberg wrote:

> hi judy, 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?
Thanks for the kind words, Phritz, most welcome, since I've spent the last 
3 days (again) as Analog Woman in Digital Hell -- the first installment of 
which appeared in Post-Factory #1, & can be read and downloaded in pdf for 
free from Malin Fabbri's alternative photography website. (I did have the 
exact URL for that, but the evil digitons have hidden it, while 
disconnecting panix on my other partition, turning my hair gray, spoiling 
the milk, making me shovel snow and then snowing again, etc, etc.)

However, if you go to alternativephotography.com and then to "books", you 
should be able to find it. Folks often want the original print version as 
well (now in digital repro, too), but overseas airmail costing what it 
does these days, better as light as possible.

(To prevent whatever good will our small press might garner abroad, the US 
Post Office has eliminated out-of-country surface mail and raised airmail 
rates until you could practically come over and get it for less. It's a 
while since I've e-mailed issues overseas, but I'll ask the PO the current 
rate --probably more than the issues themselves -- and let you know 
offlist. And lest I be accused of "commerce" on the list, I'll send other 
details off list as well.

I will add, however,  that thanks to Chucky at Unique Copy Shop, I expect 
another 40 copies of P-F #3 by Friday, completing the set again -- and 
forever. (I have VOWED not to tempt the digitons EVER again. When Issue #4 
runs out... enough !)

> 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) ).
Will you share the name of this interesting paper? Of course it may be 
available only in Europe, but many are international, as well....  I'll 
add that, forced by a higher power (finding lost prints for a show) I made 
the most serious effort in years to clean up my comedy act of chaos in the 
studio -- and, climbing a ladder to reach the loft to stash a box of 
VALUABLE trash, not only did not break my neck, but found two large pads 
of Strathmore archival drawing paper -- PRE-war (WW2) -- that NY Central 
Artists Materials had spiral bound and I'd bought a bunch of. As I recall, 
besides pd, pt, VDB & cyano, it was also nice for gum, and your 
description above reminds me that I intend to try it again.

> ..and i 
> currently use rabbit skin glue as a size.
That's also on my list -- I'd tried it once and made a mess, but I've 
decided again to try again.

Meanwhile an old gum print that needed some work has been soaking 
face-down in water for more than a month -- mold grows on the back.  That 
wasn't intended, but happened... (I had fine results with 2 days soak in 
the past -- you can wipe out stuff and recoat, so this could be 15 times 
as good.)

> 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
As I recall, the 21-step sensitivity guide wasn't available in Europe, nor 
any real equivalent. My experience is that the *measured* density of such 
a guide (which you could make yourself digitally) is more useful in tests 
than the essentially random density of a picture negative.

> 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?
Apparently not !!! These are plain white dinnerware, like teacups and 
platters and serving bowls -- which probably sound terribly ho hum, but in 
this presentation, *only in black and white*, were radiant !!

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.
These were not as far as I know on a website, tho perhaps she's now put 
them there. When I become sane again, I'll call the gallery to ask...

Meanwhile, it's midnight and my fairy godmother has turned my pumpkin into 
a bed... I'll answer more questions tomorrow.

for now, best regards, hello to Denmark, and thanks for your interest,

Judy