<< My most recent Photographer's Formulary catalog is 1993; in it the Gum
Bichromate kit is $17. Perhaps it's $20 today? You can buy a *gallon* of
gum arabic (14 baume) for $16, and a *pound* of potassium dichromate for
about $7, which would be a lifetime supply of both unless you're only 8
years old and making huge prints. Daniel Smith watercolors in the *large*
size are about $6 a tube. In other words, for about the price of one and
a half kits you can work indefinitely. >>
Judy,
Your reasoning was exactly why I posted the original message! The arithmetics
for the price of the kit compared to buying the chemical separately don't
come out right to me. That is why I wanted to find out what is exactly in the
kit. Thanks for explicitly making the comparison above.
Now it seems like the difference is only on Steve Anchell's article. Is it
extrodinary? I have Scopic's book and have access to Keepers of Light and a
few other books in the library (a good one that I like - I forgot the name of
the author - is by a female author with plenty of step-by-step pictures of
probably herself making prints in different processes).
I would think those books should be enough to get me started without the
article in the kit. What do you think?
Thanks again for all the responses!
In a message dated 96-07-19 02:08:53 EDT, you write:
<< Has anyone tried Old Holland Brand. They say they are based on an old
Chinese recipe - the most intense brilliant and bright watercolor found.
Much stronger than normal watercolers, yet wonderfully transparent. - So
does the ad suggest. >>
I happen to be a painter in Chinese Painting. I have studied under a very
traditional school, so I can and have prepared my own watercolor for Chiense
painting before. I would suggest not to trust the ad too much. The main
difference between the watercolor for Chinese painting and that of Western
watercolor is the binder. Most regular watercolors use gum arabic, whereas
the Chinese painter traditionally us gum made from animal skin (ox mostly).
And about the brilliance, if the colors are made from earth color (Chinese
painters have use azurite, ruby, pearl, etc.), the colors are indeed
brilliant but not transparent. Most transparent *and* brilliant colors are
vegetable (dye) based. They look real nice but these colors are fugitive
(they fade pretty fast).
If you look at old Chinese painting, you might think that the Chinese has a
completely different aesthetic in terms of colors because most of the colors
used are a little strange. Well, that is not the case. It is because many
popular colors used in Chinese painting are fugitive. Some of the paintings
we see today are more than a thousand years, so some colors faded completely
while other remain, hence the weird colors.
For example, indigo is a very popular color is traditional Chinese painting;
but it was made from the indigo plant. The color fade very fast. Modern
indigo, however, are made from Prussian blue or Pthalocyanine blue, so they
are much better.