------------------<begin included message>----------------------
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 01:53:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Quoting Paul Anderson Part Two
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Peter charles fredrick wrote:
> Personally I do not see why you need to keep shouting down this well,
I wish to see gum well and widely practiced, rather than, as is so often
the case today, mal-practiced.
When so much of the conventional wisdom (repeated even by purveyors of
supplies, as I have mentioned in these pages at least twice), is that
"gum can't do fine detail" and that density must be built up in several
coats, it's no surprise that prints are made, as it were, with one hand
tied behind the back. Crude for effect is one thing. Crude from
ignorance is another.
> 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.
"Quality"?
Defined how? I infer from the question the 1996 platinum-printer
mentality that sees "quality" as meaning long scale, smooth texture,
high D-max. My point is simply that gum can do well enough in these
respects for all practical purposes, can print every "detail" in the
negative (tho not quite on Bockingford) and get a fine hit of density in
one coat.
As for proof, prove it yourself. Take a sheet of smooth paper, mix
1/2 g Winsor Newton Indian red, 1/2 g Schmincke Indigo (lacking
Schmincke use half the amount of Winsor Newton Indigo & a few drops less
gum), 40 drops heavy gum arabic (50%), 10 drops distilled water, 30
drops saturated ammonium dichromate.
This covers an 8x10 with emulsion to spare. Coat paper with a foam
applicator, whisk smooth with clean dry 3" wide hake brush. Air dry in
dark. Expose under a negative having about 8 steps on the 21-step (100
units on the NuArc). Soak face down in still water from 1 to 24 hours.
> 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.?
Why not sing *and* dance?
Judy