[alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
kakarott76 at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 25 21:53:04 GMT 2011
I'll definitely keep coming back for info and to show results now that I know the list is active.
I have the Book of Alternative Photographic Processes by Christopher James. In it he gives several different ways to size
paper, one of which is a Gesso/Geletin combination that he says another printer always had great luck with. Since both
are readily available locally and cheap, I decided to try it. I haven't sized any other way so I can't compare but as far as
I can tell it works.
I recall seeing on the archives someone else also used a gesso/geletin combination but I forget who it was. I can't seem
to find it again (very hard when I've read from 2005 all the way to 2000 plus some back in 1996! lol) but thats were I got
my numbers of 30-40ml gesso to 250 ml (3.5%) geletin. Chris James just mentions a dollop of gesso to 3.5% geletin. I much rather
prefer hard numbers than "a pinch of this, pinch of that" :)
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:50:37 -0500
> From: keith.gerling at gmail.com
> To: dickburk at ix.netcom.com; alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Hi Kurt and welcome.
> As a longtime gumprinter, I have used only computer generated negatives for
> the last 5 years, and before that, conventionally enlarged lith negatives.
> I've only made one gum from an in-camera negative. I read your initial post
> her with interest, because I have been toying with the notion of doing the
> same thing: making three exposures with a large format pinhole and
> "combining" them in gum. So I hope you will follow up and share your
> results with us.
> I am curious about why you include the gesso. I've never used Berger paper
> for gum, so I have no perspective here, but it seems that would serve to
> introduce inconsistencies. My experience with gesso is that it always seems
> to reduce the scale, and with gum, that is certainly NOT something one
> usually looks for.
> Good luck
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Richard Knoppow <dickburk at ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Bryant" <donsbryant at gmail.com>
> > To: "'The alternative photographic processes mailing list'" <
> > alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 6:49 PM
> > 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
> > I think all lists go through sporadic periods where there is just not
> > much traffic. Then someone posts something that wakes everyone up and there
> > is heavy traffic for a while. I think we just had a bit of a quiet spell.
> > Unlike the lists I belong to that are based on conventional or "wet"
> > photography this one has not diminished with the increase in digital
> > photography. I think that is because they are compatible in many ways.
> > Digital technology is used by many printers to prepare negatives for
> > printing and other purposes. Also, I think many of the participants here are
> > practicing artists who are most interested in methods of accomplishing some
> > desired end rather than the technology for its own sake, although one can
> > not ignore that by any means.
> > --
> > Richard Knoppow
> > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > dickburk at ix.netcom.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list