Reluctant though I am to quote Paul Anderson, father of the futile
"pigment-in-gum" test preserved for posterity by Henney & Dudley, Keepers
of Light, and now Scopick (no doubt among others), destined it seems to
debilitate and mislead the faithful as long as gum is printed -- still, in
February 1914 "American Photography" Anderson states some facts so well it
would be wrong not to share them -- especially since they address issues I
myself have addressed to so little avail:
The article is Chapter I of Anderson's series on "The Gum-Pigment
Process"; it opens by saying "several misconceptions" need to be cleared
up, among them,
"... that gum is difficult to handle and that prints cannot be duplicated
readily, an idea which may be traced to two facts, that workers in the
past have largely employed brush development, and that they have made no
attempt at standardizing their methods of working. If automatic
development be used and standard methods adopted gum is easier to work
than bromide and results may be repeated indefinitely.
"Another false notion is that gum prints must of necessity have a rough
grain and poor definition, but the writer often prints 4A Kodak negatives
and 5x7 portraits in gum, the resulting definition and grain being on a
par with those of a smooth platinum, these qualities depending entirely on
the texture of the stock and the form of development used.
"The last objection to gum is that it is a short-scale process -- about
one-third that of platinum -- but this cannot properly be called a
disadvantage, for many subjects are best treated in a few tones -- in fact
there is a great tendency to overdo the matter of scale in photographic
work ...."
And so forth. (Need I say the last remark seems particularly apt in view
of a recent/current thread on this very list?) Let me only add -- tho I
realize I might as well shout down a well for all the effect I will have
on received myth -- recent remarks about digital negatives which are still
a bit crude but "good enough for gum" are grievously and perniciously
false. Pique tempts me to say they may, however, be good enough for those
who could make such claims, but I refrain.
However, I will in forseeable future hazard a few words about how and why
gum got its character of "rough grain" and "poor definition," while
correcting an egregiously wrong assumption of my own on the topic.
(Insight via dogged struggles with Puyo and Demachy - - en francais, en
francais tres recherche.)
a bientot,
Judy