A while back Bernard (aka "Bernie") mentioned on line that brush sizing
was inferior to tray sizing & I e-mailed back to ask why. A few days later
I got a letter (oui, vrai escargot) with offset repros of gum prints to
amaze the multitudes plus the explanation that brushed-on gelatine seemed
OK for maybe one added coat, but,
"In every case I found that after 5 or 6 coats the tray sizing was giving
me a superior print. That is, more even (the brush-on sizing seemed to
develop mottling that wasn't apparent in the initial coats), better
highlights, and if I wound up brushing in development the next coat would
definitely stain in the highlights, which didn't happen in the tray-sized
paper. My current theory is that the tray-sized paper is sized deeper
into the paper, and the brushed-on is more on the surface."
As it happened, this letter with the samples of Bernie's promo pieces
arrived the day before Paris Video Sunday at this very location, and were
shown to that motley gang of 9 which refused to accept them as gum prints.
The main objections, besides the perfectly smooth texture and photo "look"
were the precise detail, clear whites in the eyes, verisimilitude of color
(as in a certain elusive red of lipstick, "impossible to get with
pigment") and depth of D-Max. I testified that D-max isn't such a great
problem with multiple coats, but promised to grill Bernie about the rest.
There followed a couple of e-mails between us at which point (before asking
many more questions which came to mind) I suggested sharing this info
with the list. Bernie said sure, but wondered if it made sense without the
work. Perhaps my general description will help:
A couple of the prints (in repro) have the look of celebrity head shots
and a man on a motorcycle could be a record album cover, ie very high key,
polished looking, full color photography. Another, in a rich brown
monochrome, of Kenny Rogers, combines realistic portrait with a
manipulated effect reminiscent of Sabattier, but different -- very
seductive. However, artifacts of the gum process -- brush marks, strokes,
splashes at the edges -- signal hand-made, a disjunction that for me (pace
Bernie, Sharon Stone is not one of my personal role models) gives the work
its edge and I daresay that is the intention.
I think inevitably of Stephen Livick, whose gum prints look (also in
repro) like Ektachrome, or whatever they call color photographs nowadays,
tho Livick's brush marks are (so I'm told) in the negative, inserted by
higher forces. Bernie's brush marks are apparently freehand (riskier?)
and one print is vignetted -- a non-geometric freeform shape, with visible
strokes in the individual colors on the periphery signalling
"hand-applied."
In sum, aside from appreciation of the gum process brought to this awesome
level of control, I like the one-picture-worth-a-thousand-words message to
"experts," quitters, defeatists, the developmentally disabled and the
generally unwashed who might still doubt exactly what perfect detail gum can
do.
Since my own personal e-mail skills do not as yet extend to combining
messages, the rest under separate cover.
Judy