Re: Anderson's "gum-pigment ratio test" (fwd)

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Tue, 09 Jun 1998 02:21:20 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 8 Jun 1998 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
> The thing is,
> the pigment staining depends on how much pigment is *in touch* with the
> surface of the paper. Although the mix might look dark, only one thin layer of
> pigment physically touch the paper because the pigment is suspended in gum
> because of the thickness of gum. Suppose you have 0.5 g of pigment in 5 ml of
> gum, the pigment is well suspended there. Now lets say you add a very small
> amount of dichromate (say 2 drops for theoretical discussion), now the mix is
> *very* slightly diluted, so you have less concentration of pigment in the gum
> mix, so less pigment touch the paper, so theoretically you should have less
> pigment staining.

Dave, I don't find pigment concentration a factor in staining.... try it
yourself.... double the pigment in a mix and see if you get more staining.

>
> Logic would say then, that the more you dilute, the less staining it
> would be, but I am sure you have read, heard, or experienced that this
> is not the case. The reason is when you add dichromate, you also dilute
> the thickness or viscosity of the gum. At some point the gum becomes not
> viscous enough to hold the pigment in suspention (think about trying to
> hold sand in suspension in water), so the pigment starts to settle to
> the bottom, so more pigment touch the surface of the paper, and you
> start to get *more* staining. You cannot see this with your eye because
> they still look the same, and watercolorists don't have to worry about
> this because they don't have to deal with lifting the pigment later as
> gummists do.

I think it's the viscosity rather than the amount of pigment touching the
paper... or maybe both, but, but you're right, *logic* doesn't do it...

> This is the reason why I also think that
> the gum-pigment ratio test without dichromate means nothing practically.

Or say it means nothing absolutely..;- ) The action of the light is in
there, too.

Judy