I, for one, am glad to see you back on the list.
I was writing something the other day on a subject where I know that our
opinions differ. But it is a point that is probably worth clarifying in
discussion.
You have told us that you are a supporter of the one coat approach to gum
printing which has a good foundation in practice over many years. I have
seen good one coat gums from the end of the nineteenth century, from the
the twenties and thirties and modern examples.
I, however, prefer the approach using more than one coat as it gives me
the control over colour and contrast that enables me to achieve the
effects I am looking for in the final image.
These are different approaches which are both legitimate. But they can
lead to very different results.
According to a number of sources, for example Crawford:
'The image from a single gum printing is often disappointingly
weak.................But multipleprinting is necessary inorder to gain the
full photographic tonal scale of which the process is capable.' He suggests
a test using a step wedge to demonstrate the point.
Other sources, and my own experience, suggest that one can achieve the
optimum gradation if one aims to achieve a density range from a single
exposure of around 0.7.
This suggests that if one attempts to extend the range to be obtained from
one exposure one is going to do so at the cost of a corresponding loss in
the subtlety of gradation. This may well be what the photographer or
printer is looking for. In which case there is no argument. A more graphic
effect is required and that is one way of achieving it.
Would you agree witht the point about loss of subtlety in gradation with
attempts to increase the contrast range for one printing ?
If not, what means would one employ to avoid that loss of gradation ?
Terry