Re: Gum Print and Color Separation

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 04 Jun 1997 23:58:05 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-05-31 04:54:42 EDT, jseigel@panix.com (Judy Seigel)
> writes:
>
> << I understand that years ago Steven Livick, Canada's legendary gum printer,
> had brush marks put in the negatives for his color separations. >>
>
> Judy, do you know if he used screened (halftoned) negatives or traditional
> continuos-tone separations? I haven't seen many of his works but am impressed
> by the accuracy shown in Scopick's book.

I got the info second-hand, so can't say as eye witness, but I was told
they were screened negatives. And I will say from my own "eye-witness"
experience that gum seemed much easier with screened negs. That is, the
one tricolor digital negative print I made (kind friend gave me the color
seps) was a piece of cake. You could do no wrong. That's why the cry
about THREE-COLOR GUM as something like walking on water may have it
backwards.

I do believe, however, that Scopick says Livick's negatives are
screened. You might check. (I'm not going to look at that book again of
my own free will, so I leave it to you.)

Judy