Re: gum "stain" with zero exposure... etc.
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Paul Viapiano wrote: And damn that Keith Taylor and his recent publicity for making us all think that the gum c-print is possible, when we should be taking Richard Benson to heart and realizing that gum can't do fine detail!Ah Paul, I sense a great ironist at work... But lest some newbies on the list take that "gum can't do fine detail" at face value... I cannot forbear pointing out that gum can print EVERYTHING in the negative provided you (a) get the register right [platinum is usually only 1 coat, as I recall, so that re-register isn't an issue] and (b) what free-thinker would DARE print platinum on the textured paper customary for gum? That is, the "rough" effect is a factor of the paper and/or re-register and/or belief in a particular "gum look." (Those textured papers are also more absorbent, so could eat the week's food budget to make one "platinum print.") PS. Since we're among friends here, I'll note that although I found Keith Taylor's (or was it "Carter"????) gum prints showed a fine expertise in the medium, they might as well have been C-prints, as -- to me at least -- they lost the oomph of gum. I'd think this might have been only the effect of seeing them in repro, but I'd seen originals at the Stevenson Gallery a few years ago. They were extremely impressive in their perfection & expertise, but, as love objects... subject to qualification... J.
|