So this Paul Anderson part two,
>(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 destined it seems to
debilitate and mislead the faithful as long as gum is printed ) -{ and of
course Clerca PF comment ! }.
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 standardising 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 ...." <
> ( tho I realise I might as well shout down a well for all the effect I
will have
on received myth)<
Personally I do not see why you need to keep shouting down this well, my
experience of this list is only six months old, but this shout seems to go
on and on.
Even I have been accused of it in APR no 4 off list,despite the fact that
in my book Creative Sunprinting published by focal press in 1980, on page
43, I state :- It must be understood, however .that the use of these
autographic techniques is by no means essential for the for the successful
application of this form of Sunprinting.Very beautiful results can be
obtained without any manipulation at all.
You seem obsessed by this puritanical concept of gum printing.I do not deny
that the gum process can produce results that are nearly as good as the
traditional silver print materials, but are you seriously saying that the
gum process can delivery a technical print that has the quality of say a
Ilford Multigrade fibre based silver print, I think not !, and I challenge
you to prove me wrong.
However I can understand your annoyance in the repeated canard of lack of
detail in gum printing , although this is understandable, when it is
realised that the main difference between this process and the
conventional processes, is that with the direct carbon processes, a
tremendous amount of manipulative control is possible, whereas the
conventional silver processes are to a very large extent in a technical
trait jacket compared to the gum . therefore the independent observer
see,s gum printing is basically a manipulative medium.
This viewpoint is not wrong, why bother to extol its virtues as a
reproductive medium , when it is so good at doing far more exciting
creative things , from a manipulative visual point of view.?
pete
I bet this one has put the cat amongst the pigeons