> Most gum printers I know were not even aware of the concept of a
substrate.
Which is probably why the canard that "gum can't do fine detail" or "gum
has a sketchy effect" or "gum is by nature impressionistic" is so
prevalent. We have discussed this on list before, but I guess I have to
say again: I have not seen many gums larger than 8x10 that appeared sharp
that hadn't been on a substrate. In some cases taping around the edges
will do, but that can present other problems, as noted.
Guess I have to add that Bernie Boudreau's gums looked sharp, and as I
recall he said they went up to 11x14 & were not on a substrate, but the
repros were small, so, even though Bernie seems to walk on water, I
reserve judgement.
I think also that tricolor gum may work differently, and I think it's
possible where subsequent coats go in different areas (with brushing off
or partial coatings) to retain sharpness, but *in my experience* (OK?) a
substrate is safer and more effective.
Of course some people like that sketchy look, it being, in fact, why they
do gum. I'm reading an old book now where the guy says, in effect, if it
doesn't look arty, or show "the hand", why bother, do something easier.
But that wasn't the question, which was about substrates....
> They had seen Irving Penn's platinums but thought that the metal backing
was a sales > gimmick.
What do Irving Penn's (very large) platinum prints have to do with this
discussion? Are you suggesting that if he had followed your instructions
he wouldn't have needed a substrate for re-register?
Judy