[alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?

[Julian Smart]

Hi Kurt,

Welcome to the list.

As one of the resident lurking gum printers, I would like to suggest that 
you do not try to reduce the density of your negatives by underexposing. 
This will only lead to a loss of shadow detail. You need to retain your 
shadow detail by exposing correctly and lower the contrast of the negative 
by cutting back on the development time. Gum is a short scale process, that 
is it can only record a few grades of tone (or shades of grey if you are 
printing a step wedge), and needs a negative with a somewhat expanded tonal 
range to produce the complete set of tones that existed in the original 
scene. Think of a Silver Gelatine  neg. needing a grade 3 or 4 printing 
paper and you will be in the ball park.
Of course, as with all things gum related, there are a thousand and one ways 
of doing the same thing and it all really boils down to individual working 
methods and requirements- every gum printer has .

 Regarding your use of Gesso in the gelatine size, I can comment that I have 
tried this, hoping that it would remove the need for a hardener- the Gesso 
renders the gelatine coating insoluble in water- and had reasonable results 
this way. I did find the prints had a rather sparkly finish, though!
 Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Julian Smart




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kurt Nagy" <kakarott76 at hotmail.com>
To: "Alt photo Process" <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?


>
> Thanks for the reply, good to know its still active!
>
> At the moment I'm working with negatives I've used in printing and other 
> projects, which print just fine but again may be on the dense side.
> I haven't taken any shots that specifically will be used in gum, when I do 
> I think I may purposesly underexpose a stop or 2, finding a happy medium 
> between too dense or thin.
>
> I'll see if I can upload some of the few of the test prints I made to 
> flickr and post a link.  At the moment the highlights are clearing but 
> losing detail in the shadows, jsut seems like they are overexposed.  Where 
> as in a normal print, the shadows are dark but still detail in it. <shrug>
>
>
>
>
>> From: donsbryant at gmail.com
>> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
>> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:49:28 -0400
>> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
>>
>> >
>> Hello, my name is Kurt Nagy
>>
>> This post is just an introduction and to see if there are still people 
>> out
>> there.
>> >
>>
>> Greetings Kurt and Welcome to the "List"!
>>
>> The List has been Listless for quite a while now with a few bursts of
>> posting now and then. Many of the List gum printers lurk in the shadows 
>> and
>> don't post frequently. Perhaps your questions and comments about gum
>> printing will invigorate discussions about gum printing.
>>
>> First, if possible try not printing with dense negatives. Long exposure
>> times can cause problems with gum. I assume you are experiencing anemic
>> looking prints. Using a saturated solution of potassium bichromate will 
>> work
>> fine though ammonium bichromate is more light sensitive.
>>
>> Tri-color gum with film separations eh? Your are an ambitious man! Of 
>> course
>> you will need to use a panchromatic film. Steve Anchell the former editor 
>> of
>> Photovision magazine, wrote an article published sometime in the mid 80s 
>> or
>> 90s describing his method of printing tri-color gum using TMAX 100 film.
>> Perhaps one of our list members can tell what the publication date was 
>> and
>> what magazine the article was printed in.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> Don Bryant
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo