From: TERRY KING, 101522,2625
TO: Judy Seigel, INTERNET:jseigel@panix.com
DATE: 30/05/96 09:19
RE: Copy of: Re: Quoting Paul Anderson
Hello Judy
>
> Enjoyed your reply re gum, for which thanks and a few comments below,
> but think you erred in sending it just to me....... maybe winsome is
> playing with you again. In any event, you should send it to list.
>
>Sorry. I forgot to forward it to the list. The 'excerpt' mode on this thing
only allows me to reply to the sender otherwise I have to go though the 'print
screen' route and put in my own carets.
> On 29 May 1996, TERRY KING wrote:
> > 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
> >
> I don't follow that. Would you elaborate? What do you mean "testing
> pigment in gum"? To what end?
Neither thee nor me has been able to work out the answer to that one.
To see the color? Color changes with the
> dichromate, no matter how virtuously you clear......
The colour clears back if you wash for six hours in very gently running water;
the bichromate clears chemically if you wash for eight hours. You get unmetred
local calls; we get unmetred water.
> > 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.
> >
>
> I think it's a purification ritual to placate the gum gods....
You upbraided me last time i said that but it is true.
>
> > 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
>
> I have not been so fortunate as you to see collections of gums from 100
> years ago, in fact have seen very few vintage gums anywhere -- some
> Kasebiers, a few Whites, and then only reproductions.
Come over again soon and we will go down to Bath together.
>
> > that gum should go on top of the platinum goes beyond the rational. But
getting
>
> Gee I don't know, Terry. With the gum on top you can brush off by eye
> (rather than in advance) and do colors.
The reason stated at the time for putting the gum on top was to get a good black
from the platinum. Well they were not printing platinum very well were they. I
put on all the colours first in the gum and then put on the platinum to get the
blacks.
>
> >
> > 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. >
>
> OK, OK, but the conventional "wisdom" doesn't tell us you can't do that,
> but rather that you *must*. So Anderson is making the point I've so often
> futilely attempted, automatic development on the right paper, etc. can be
> relatively long scale and "smooth as platinum."
So can brush development if you hold the brush properly and treat the print with
respect. I used to do it with a three inch sable wash brush but now I use hake
brushes and sponges. Just because I use kitchen scourers sometimes to rescue an
overexposed student print does not mean that I do not do it all the time.
>
> > 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
>
> In one coat? If they do that, they may be very dense, but have a short
> range..... I'm curious, tho, what your exposure times would be like.
In three to get colour variation across the contrast range. Quite long !
>
> > 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.
>
> What kind of resolution? I'm having trouble printing high-end digital
> negatives because my style of printing on smooth paper has no forgiveness
> -- a small amount of dot gain (which does happen) and bingo, measles.
> Have you got one of those desk top negatives on A4 paper? Can you make a
> copy & send it to me?
It was Barnaby Cox 'wot done it' not me, but he is busy writing his dissertation
at the moment so he probably want see this until next week, but he did say how
he did it on the list recently.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well that's what I thought (tho I'm not aware of any *contemporary* gums
> going into collections in the US of A)
Is there not a person from the US who embroiders her 'gums' ? That was only a
comment on 'contemporary' by the way.
but now I see it began in the
> beginning and was *deliberate* -
Some were and some were not.
- to show that it was "art,"
Some 'post' some 'propter'
I'll quote
> the passages, soon as I get a little further into the book, but it's clear
> to me that Puyo/Demachy knew *very well* what they were doing and could
> have made very sharp prints.
I did say 'some' not 'all'. It is clear that Demachy and Puyo knew what they
were doing and sometimes I think Puyo more than Demachy.
Terry King