U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: gum negatives redux

Re: gum negatives redux

Paul, my scientific answer is: Hmmmm? That usually works just fine, but then, last night I tried the same approach with the same results that you experienced! It may be that there is surfacing another variable in gum printing, bringing the number to 1243. Sorry, I have no answer, just egg on my face ;(

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Paul Viapiano <viapiano@pacbell.net> wrote:
Katharine & Jim...

I tried the ivory black at 1 gram / 2 ml gum in a 1:1 ratio with the pot dichromate.

Exposed for approx half my highlight exposure, but at 25 min in development, there was hardly any black pigment left on the print.

I need to step-tablet this negative and try a few different pigments...but...

When doing an exposure for the shadows, would you expect a much shorter dev time?


----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 6:17 PM

Subject: Re: gum negatives redux

Suggestion: I'd use ivory black, not too heavy (at a medium-heavy concentration, it's a lovely dark chocolate brown color, the color of bittersweet chocolate) to fill in the shadows; that would anchor your image well, IMO.

The pigment concentration should vary with the pigment, but what  you're done here looks okay to me.  The earth pigments are weaker as  a rule than some  others, but your burnt umber looks good there for  midtones.  You'll never be able to print the burnt umber dark enough  to really give dark shadows, it's not in its nature, which is why I'm  suggesting ivory black for the darker parts.

Glad you're having a printing day that doesn't require chugging the Everclear,

On Sep 12, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:

1st layer: Burnt umber   5 1/2 minutes

2nd and 3rd layers: Raw umber   2 1/2 minutes    (1 gr pigment / 2  ml gum) Is this concentration high enuff?

I think 2 1/2 min is not enough time with these Pd negs...I'm  thinking 3 1/2 m


----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: gum negatives redux

Yeah, I'd say hit it with a really heavy pigment concentration for  a short time for darker shadows.   What's your pigment?

On Sep 12, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:

Well, not finished yet...needs some more shadow work...but...


----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Moore
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: gum negatives redux

Any scans or shots of the images? There has been a dearth of new   alt prints in my life as of recent.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Paul Viapiano   <viapiano@pacbell.net> wrote:
I should've been more clear...I'm getting better gum results from palladium negs than using less contrasty negs for gum. My  palladium prints print wonderfully with the palladium negs ;-)

This would be a huge advantage for me, in not having to keep  track  of two different styles of digital negatives.

Now, I'm wondering how the palladium negs will work with tri- color gum...only one way to find out!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Viapiano" <viapiano@pacbell.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:20 PM
Subject: gum negatives redux

> Hi all...
> I'm getting much better results using my QTR inkjet palladium
negatives for
> pure gum purposes. Detail is much sharper with these contrasty
negs and I'm
> getting a pretty full range of tones.
> Exposures with 1:1 gum/dichromate ratio (pot di) are 6-7 min for
> 2 1/2 min for shadows and mids somewhere btw those.
> This is for exposure in full blazing blue sky sun, Southern
> style.
> Still adjusting and experimenting, but happy to have a printing
day that is
> not frustrating ;-)...of course, it's not over yet.
> Paul