[Alt-photo] Re: 1st attempt

[Laura V]

Ah, so by "thinner" you mean less pigment. I'll try that.
I've read that less dichromate can give a less contrasty print...so I 
might try that too later, right now I just want to get up to the level 
where I was before.

Thanks for reminding me about the book...if I remember correctly, that 
edition was coming out right about the time I abruptly quit printing. 
I'll definitely check it out. I do remember Christina's very helpful 
posts to the list over the years.

Laura

On 10/23/13 2:15 PM, Jack Brubaker wrote:
> You will find it interesting (if you haven't already done so) to search the
> archives of this list on the subject of gum. One of the striking things is
> that many people are making fine prints with very different methods. Your
> method is working but I think you want to fine tune it. If so, while others
> can share their preferred methods, you may get fine results by just
> tinkering. If I had made your print, I would think about using a thinner
> coat with less pigment. Experiment and keep notes. Many printers are now
> using less dichromate with good results while saving an expensive material
> and having a less toxic process. Again Chris Anderson's book "Gum Printing
> and other amazing contact printing processes" is the encyclopedia of
> current and historical knowledge. It is available at:
> http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Laura V <laura at lavatop.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/13 2:16 AM, Jack Brubaker wrote:
>>
>>> Laura,
>>>
>>> That is a very good beginning for someone working by your self.
>>>
>> Thanks...you might have missed my re-introduction though. This is not my
>> "1st" print, but my first after a 4 year break, and a few of the variables
>> have changed (new gum, different light, etc) so it all feels different.
>>
>>     A thin coat will be better bonded to the paper (the
>>> exposure will penetrate to the paper), and can withstand a longer
>>> development that will help clear whites and allow physical development if
>>> needed.
>>>
>> This is what I thought, but I'm not sure if this means I should thin out
>> my mixture, or just apply it more forcefully and spread it out better. I
>> mixed my gum myself from lumps without weighing (because I did it before I
>> got help here on how to do it) and it feels thicker than what I used
>> before, so maybe it just needs more water.
>>
>>
>>>    It is most helpful when showing a print that you have questions about to
>>> tell what your mix is of gum, water, and color, what your exposure is, and
>>> how long it developed, and whether by just floating on the water or with
>>> physical intervention.
>>>
>> Gum and dichromate one to one; one teaspoon each with a blob of color
>> (about 1cm) which is what worked before. 4 min exposure. Developed for
>> 20-30 mins face down in cold water, gently agitating the tray a few times
>> and flipping it over to see how it was coming along.
>>
>>     Most gum printers only
>>> work in multi layers to avoid the problem you see in your print.
>>>
>> Oh yes, I intend to do 2 or 3 layers.
>>
>>
>>> Welcome to the addiction of the ever elusive perfect gum print,
>>>
>> Heh, yeah it's crazy isn't it? Like learning Icelandic.
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Laura V <laura at lavatop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Actually, it's the 2nd attempt, the first one peeled right off the paper
>>>> and washed away. It felt like the gum was thicker and stickier than I
>>>> remembered using before, it was like honey, so I thinned it out to more
>>>> of
>>>> the consistency of maple syrup. I also increased the exposure a bit for
>>>> good measure. This stuck to the paper much better, and the exposure seems
>>>> right, but you can see there is still some peeling at the top in the sky.
>>>> Has anyone had this problem? How do you like your gum  mixture, thick or
>>>> thin?
>>>>
>>>> The other problem I'm having is that the light source (my mercury vapor
>>>> bulb that I put inside the vacuum press) is much closer to the glass
>>>> that I
>>>> had hoped...it is only about 20 cm away. So I guess that explains why the
>>>> image gets whiter on the sides. I'll have to figure something out with
>>>> the
>>>> lighting.
>>>>
>>>> http://lauraval.com/mountain.****jpg<http://lauraval.com/mountain.**jpg><
>>>> http://lauraval.com/mountain.**jpg <http://lauraval.com/mountain.jpg>>
>>>>
>>>> Laura
>>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>>>>
>>>>   ______________________________**_________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>
>