Hello again Terry & all,
Am I going to have to raise my voice in an unladylike manner? Is circa
1920 "the classical Era."?
I have come across several plans to use a rigid substrate in periodicals,
manuals about gum printing, which was where I got the notion to fasten
the paper to aluminum with shellac. It was the best of a bad lot of
things I've tried, the only problem being that I couldn't get the paper
off again. I don't count Irving Penn's *permanent* fastening of platinum
prints to aluminum. If I want permanent I have 6 different kinds of archival
adhesive in the house that will do it.
But before we accept as whole cloth the claim that if it needed to be done
the golden age would have done it, let us remember:
Gum printing did not become an art process in general use until early
1900s, I'd say 1901 off the top of my head. Magazines of 1903 & 1904 were
giving instructions. (Are we past the classic age yet?) But the earliest
gum printers used only one color. Puyo insists that only one *coat* was
necessary (he says multi-coats were a weakness of "les etrangeres," later
specifying "les allemands").
Equally important, the STYLE OF PHOTOGRAPHS AT THAT TIME WAS SOFT FOCUS.
If you examine Gertrude Kasebier's multiple gums you'll see they're
radically out of focus, but she focussed the face and the rest just
floated. Didn't matter. Other photographers were equally soft focus,
grainy, low-contrast. By the 20s gum was declasse ( Stieglitz dropped
Kasebier) and by the 30s it was a joke.But I have assumed that the
stirrings of interest in a substrate grew from a change in the air -- art
photography was becoming, had become sharp (f-64, et al, et Ed, too).
Some of us would like to keep contemporary-type sharp focus as an option
in gum, or a degree of it. I got some amazing multiple gum effects several
years ago before I knew that photo spray (something 88?) was an archival
no-no & had fastened paper to a rigid support with it. It built up almost
a 3-D effect. I was a clinker gum printer at the time & the print a
failure overall, but that tactile color stayed in mind. So scoff and tear
your hair Terry, I persist.
> If Judy agrees it might be worthwhile to distribute my e-mails to her of last
> week on the subject.
Oh yes, please do. Then some other people can take up the cause of truth
& I won't be out here alone.
> As to aluminium substrates, perhaps someone could confirm that that was what
> Irving Penn used in his platinum printing. When I have held the Penn prints in
> my hands, the substrate certainly felt and looked like aluminium.
>
Someone on this list said that last year.....forget who.
> As to gum platinum and gum silver processes I have found that prints containing
> complicated detail such as fine lace can be printed without the use of a
> substrate. The important thing is to ensure that they are washed long enough to
> be chemically clean.
Right. And keep your mind chemically clean too. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
> Almost as a post script, are there any gum printers on the list who wash their
> prints back to pure colour every time they make an exposure ?
Since I tend to long soaks (often overnight or 24 hours) that happens, but
for whatever reason (some supect the superior New York City water) there
is little residual dichromate stain around here in normal gum printing in
any event. Or I'd say if you clear a test and compare to an uncleared
duplicate you'll see a difference, but by itself the print looks clean.
Judy