[alt-photo] Re: Alt-photo-process-list Digest, Vol 385, Issue 1
Laura Chenault
lauraechenault at gmail.com
Sat Mar 26 22:15:39 GMT 2011
RE: Gesso
I don't do a lot of gum printing, but my favorite local guru DOES use gesso
diluted 1 part gesso to 2 parts water as a size and gets amazing results.
Not even my 2 cents... ;)
Laura Chenault
415.430.5748
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:00 AM, <
alt-photo-process-list-request at lists.altphotolist.org> wrote:
> Send Alt-photo-process-list mailing list submissions to
> alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-photo-process-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> alt-photo-process-list-request at lists.altphotolist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> alt-photo-process-list-owner at lists.altphotolist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Alt-photo-process-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Is this mailing list still active? (Keith Gerling)
> 2. Re: Is this mailing list still active? (Kurt Nagy)
> 3. alternatives [processing] (francis schanberger)
> 4. Re: Is this mailing list still active? (Julian Smart)
> 5. Re: Is this mailing list still active? (Kurt Nagy)
> 6. Re: Is this mailing list still active? (Kurt Nagy)
> 7. Re: Is this mailing list still active? (Paul Viapiano)
> 8. Re: Gum printing: removing the dichromate altogether?
> (Peter Friedrichsen)
> 9. Re: Gum printing: removing the dichromate altogether?
> (Nelson Mark)
> 10. Re: Alternative sensitiser (Christina Anderson)
> 11. Re: Is this mailing list still active? (Gordon J. Holtslander)
> 12. Re: Gum printing: removing the dichromate altogether?
> (Alberto Novo)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:50:37 -0500
> From: Keith Gerling <keith.gerling at gmail.com>
> To: Richard Knoppow <dickburk at ix.netcom.com>, The alternative
> photographic processes mailing list
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=ydiiwzf3J-BHRr4kgWVfieU5B+ZvF2gudE5OJ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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
>
> Keith
>
> 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
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:14:46 +0000
> From: Kurt Nagy <kakarott76 at hotmail.com>
> To: Alt photo Process <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Message-ID: <SNT109-W6535997279BB6A00C64B68D3B90 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:16:15 -0700
> From: francis schanberger <frangst at gmail.com>
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] alternatives [processing]
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikQXtLhEY_wV9fer4Sw1cYp7sMJhDvsgpO4qZdc at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I'm visiting NYC after an absence of nine or so years and wanted to
> report back on a possible trend of interest to altees.
>
> I have seen two shows in as many days making use of liquid photo
> emulsion (i.e. silver gelatin) coated onto handmade papers (one was
> Kaji).
>
> The exhibitions were the Jungjin Lee: "Wind" exhibit
>
> http://www.aperture.org/gallery/
>
> and Jean Pagliuso's "Raptor" and "Poultry" Suites.
>
> www.marlboroughgallery.com
>
> I may make it out tomorow to see Anne Arden McDonald's chemically
> altered photogram bodies in Brooklyn.
>
>
> --
> francis schanberger
>
> www.francisschanberger.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:30:16 -0000
> From: "Julian Smart" <juliansmart at virginmedia.com>
> To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list"
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Message-ID: <F64000A3525B4EE5A65D66D0B76E28F5 at JulianPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:53:04 +0000
> From: Kurt Nagy <kakarott76 at hotmail.com>
> To: Alt photo Process <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Message-ID: <SNT109-W25EA2ECDC42F2CF222C01D3B90 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> 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
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:02:55 +0000
> From: Kurt Nagy <kakarott76 at hotmail.com>
> To: Alt photo Process <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Message-ID: <SNT109-W466D1552C67CDA4C74B53DD3B90 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> I see, thanks!
>
>
> > From: juliansmart at virginmedia.com
> > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:30:16 +0000
> > Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:22:46 -0700
> From: "Paul Viapiano" <viapiano at pacbell.net>
> To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list"
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Message-ID: <B53D881AAAD3443DA53948907EA265C6 at dell4600>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Kurt,
>
> Welcome to the list...
>
> As some have mentioned, gum printers are all over the map.
>
> I don't size my Fabriano EW soft press, and I use negs for pt/pd...it all
> boils down to individual preferences and workflow. If there is a process
> that definitely does not have a "do this, do that" dictum, it's gum...but
> one thing that is amazing, no matter how different we all are, there is an
> amazing amount to learn from each person.
>
> Here are three soft press gums, no size, one mono, two with pt/pd neg color
> separations (in other words, negs made with my QTR pt/pd profile):
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/5389050937/in/set-72157624234247830/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4676426612/in/set-72157624234247830/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4667167861/in/set-72157624234247830/
>
> Enjoy your stay here...
>
> Paul
>
>
> ----- 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 3:02 PM
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
>
>
> >
> > I see, thanks!
> >
> >
> >> From: juliansmart at virginmedia.com
> >> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> >> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:30:16 +0000
> >> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:11:38 -0400
> From: Peter Friedrichsen <pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca>
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Gum printing: removing the dichromate
> altogether?
> Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP870FB94273F552B4BE5BFAD5B80 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Jacek,
>
> The bulk of the dichromate will wash out in the soak/rinse but there
> may be traces left behind. The metabisulfite does reduce any residual
> Cr (VI) to Cr (III) which is less toxic. Even if there is residual
> dichromate, it is not stable under high temperatures and will get
> reduced to lower chromium compounds like Cr (III). Having said all of
> that, as good practice I would make sure it is reduced beforehand to
> eliminate any risk whatsoever.
>
> Regarding metabisulfite, I know it eliminates the stain and residual
> dichromate but whether it actually solubilizes the converted chromium
> compound, I do not know; it is a good question.
>
> Glasses are often coloured with chromium and render it green so it is
> often added for wine bottle glass. Because of this effect, you should
> make sure it is gone or you may taint the enamel colour if there is a
> sufficient amount left.
>
> Peter Friedrichsen
>
>
> At 02:33 AM 03/25/2011, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >A question, in Gum dichromate, and exposing with UV light and then
> >washing it, does this remove the dichromate out from the material
> >altogether?
> >I know with potassium metabisulphite it removes the yellow stain, not
> >sure if it actually removes the dichromate?
> >
> >An idea was to try using an glass enamel paint, and print on copper.
> >Once its done put it in the kiln. Though with the dichromate still
> >lingering on the piece, and adding heat to it through the kiln, the
> >dichromate fumes is what scares me, I wouldn't want to be anywhere
> >near! :)
> >
> >Thanks
> >Jacek
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:35:18 -0500
> From: Nelson Mark <ender100 at aol.com>
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Gum printing: removing the dichromate
> altogether?
> Message-ID: <C8148124-09DD-445D-A5F4-6800DD7AAACD at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Wasn't there someone on this list that was doing Photo Copper Enamel?
>
> Best Wishes,
> Mark Nelson
> www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
>
> PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
>
> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote:
>
> > Jacek,
> >
> > The bulk of the dichromate will wash out in the soak/rinse but there may
> be traces left behind. The metabisulfite does reduce any residual Cr (VI) to
> Cr (III) which is less toxic. Even if there is residual dichromate, it is
> not stable under high temperatures and will get reduced to lower chromium
> compounds like Cr (III). Having said all of that, as good practice I would
> make sure it is reduced beforehand to eliminate any risk whatsoever.
> >
> > Regarding metabisulfite, I know it eliminates the stain and residual
> dichromate but whether it actually solubilizes the converted chromium
> compound, I do not know; it is a good question.
> >
> > Glasses are often coloured with chromium and render it green so it is
> often added for wine bottle glass. Because of this effect, you should make
> sure it is gone or you may taint the enamel colour if there is a sufficient
> amount left.
> >
> > Peter Friedrichsen
> >
> >
> > At 02:33 AM 03/25/2011, you wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> A question, in Gum dichromate, and exposing with UV light and then
> >> washing it, does this remove the dichromate out from the material
> >> altogether?
> >> I know with potassium metabisulphite it removes the yellow stain, not
> >> sure if it actually removes the dichromate?
> >>
> >> An idea was to try using an glass enamel paint, and print on copper.
> >> Once its done put it in the kiln. Though with the dichromate still
> >> lingering on the piece, and adding heat to it through the kiln, the
> >> dichromate fumes is what scares me, I wouldn't want to be anywhere
> >> near! :)
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Jacek
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:56:15 -0700
> From: Christina Anderson <zphoto at montana.net>
> To: Alt List <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Alternative sensitiser
> Message-ID: <94C583C7-BC1E-48E4-8D63-A85BF43F29A7 at montana.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >>>
> >>> A somewhat related question: does anyone know the chemical make-up of
> >>> KwikPrint? It was popular in the 70's to the 80's. First made for
> proofing
> >>> print jobs and them sold by Light Impressions for alt printing. Best
> results
> >>> when used on a king of vinyl that comes with it. Are there no old
> timers on
> >>> the list who can shed light on it? Seems that it was akin to casein and
> used
> >>> diazo as well.
> >>> Sam Wang
>
> Sam,
> I was able to ask someone at SPE the chemical makeup of Kwik Print and it
> was a dichromated polymer solution, not casein, not diazo.
> Chris
> christinaZanderson.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:39:13 -0600
> From: "Gordon J. Holtslander" <gjh at shaw.ca>
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Is this mailing list still active?
> Message-ID: <4D8D6DF1.1080201 at shaw.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Kurt:
>
> Just reading over your message again. Do you want to do tri-color gum
> from a pinhole negative? If so I'm curious about the film you will use.
>
> The bulk of my gum work was done from 8x10 black & white pinhole camera
> negatives.
>
> I've read that its possible to shoot color transparency film in a
> pinhole camera - filtration is necessary, but to do a tri-color one
> would have to make separation negatives or create digital negatives.
>
> Gord
>
>
> On 3/24/2011 5:23 PM, Kurt Nagy wrote:
> >
> > Hello, my name is Kurt Nagy
> >
> > This post is just an introduction and to see if there are still people
> out there.
> >
> > I'm a traditional (non digital) photograhy student at the University of
> Central Oklahoma that stumbled across this mailing list while researching
> Gum Bichromate. I've read through a majority of the archives at
> http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/ and learned quite a bit, so
> thank you in advance.
> >
> > The last active posts I can find were in 2009 where I assume it moved to
> the current format but I'm not quite sure if this list is still active, so
> maybe this message will go no where but I hope not.
> >
> > I've only made a few test gums and its definitely a lot of trial and
> error. My current coating process is
> >
> > Bostick& Sullivan Bergger paper sized w/ gesso and 3.5% geletin
> > A stock solution of gum/pigment mixed 3 to 1 ratio
> > 1 part stock, 1 part gum, 1 part potassium dichromate (13% sat.)
> > Using Winsor& Newton watercolors, lamp black and winsor blue/red/yellow
> >
> > Test exposures with my film negative is about 25 min under my UV lamps
> which seems a bit long from the other posts I've read but my negative is
> quite dense although it does print fine on normal grade Ilford paper.
> >
> > My end goal is to produce tri-color gum using traditional negatives and
> pinhole, I love the workmanship that goes into traditional and alternative
> process,
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> >
>
>
> --
> Gordon J. Holtslander
> gjh at shaw.ca
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:46:27 +0100
> From: "Alberto Novo" <alt.list at albertonovo.it>
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Gum printing: removing the dichromate
> altogether?
> Message-ID: <20110326064627.2319.qmail at webmaildh3.aruba.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> a little OT:
>
> > Glasses are often coloured with chromium and render it green so it is
> > often added for wine bottle glass.
>
> True that chromium is used to make emerald green glasses. Instead, for
> bottles it is iron, usually already present as an impurity, making it green
> or brown depending on reducing/oxidizing environment of the furnace.
> See http://1st-glass.1st-things.com/articles/glasscolouring.html
>
> Returning in topic:
> some years ago I had a discussion with Katharine Tayer about chromium stain
> in gum bichromate, the way to wash it out and chromium residue in the
> print.
> I believe that she tried to contact a chemist for a chemical analysis of
> the
> hardened gum arabic, but I don't know if she had any results back.
>
> Alberto
> www.grupponamias.com
> www.alternativephotography.com/wp/photographers/rodolfo-namias-group
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> End of Alt-photo-process-list Digest, Vol 385, Issue 1
> ******************************************************
>
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list
mailing list