From: TERRY KING, 101522,2625
TO: Judy Seigel, INTERNET:jseigel@panix.com
DATE: 29/05/96 10:27
RE: Copy of: Quoting Paul Anderson
Judy and others to whom you extended greetings
> 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:
I see people testing pigment in gum by measuring the depth of tint in mm per cc
when a simple graded wash on the paper would tell them a lot more. I have been
forced to the conclusion that this is some kind of obsessive activity and that
those concerned should be allowed to continue with this irrational behaviour as
long as it does not inconvenience me or frighten the horses.
>
> 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 one looks through collections of gums from one hundred years ago it becomes
clear very quickly that most of the artists did not know what they were doing
and that the good prints were often lucky flukes. Even the reason for believing
that gum should go on top of the platinum goes beyond the rational. But getting
back to Anderson, experience shows that you can do whatever you like with gum.
The best holograms I have seen were gum bichromates. It is a very flexible
process and if you want machine like repetition you can have it.
I do not, but that is my choice.
If automatic
> development be used and standard methods adopted gum is easier to work
> than bromide and results may be repeated indefinitely.
If that is what you want ! But some variations on gum which add much to the
quality of the final print can only be obtained using brush or bath sponge
development. Interesting results can also be got using kitchen scourers or
Brillo pads.
>
> "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.
Hear ! Hear!
>
> "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 ...."
Hear! hear! Again. Use it when you need it. But even then I have negatives that
are too dense for platinum that produce perfectly good gum prints. Anderson is
missing the point. At one exposure, for very subtle gradation, gum is a short
scale process. One can leave an image at that or extend the scale by multiple
printing to achieve that same gradation over a wide tonal range with the
advantage of being able to vary the colour while doing so.
>
> 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.
Desk top bubble jets can give negatives on A4 typing paper that produce better
gum prints than I have seen from the strange obsessionists. Gum can be forgiving
enough to enhance such a negative. It is one of the advantages of gum. 'Good
enough for gum' is not necessarily a pejorative comment, but it often is, from
the ignorant.
>
> However, I will in foreseeable future hazard a few words about how and why
> gum got its character of "rough grain" and "poor definition,"
This opinion arose because well known photographers made such a hash of gum
printing but said ' Look, aren't I clever I have made a gum print', and gallery
curators said 'Oo look a gum print by Mr Artiefartie, it must be good' and so it
got into collections and people said 'I do not like gum prints they are all wish
washy and indistinct'. But then again some photoraphers preferred to it that
way. life is so complicated.
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
>
We are on tenterhooks.
Terry King