Last year I participated in a bi-coastal gum test. A friend sent me some
of his Photographer's Formulary gum, we both made tests, often on the
same papers. I'd have to check the file to see how the BFK worked, but
that gum here was worse-to-impossible on 11 out of 13 papers -- with the
other ingredients I was using.
Even with ingredients more or less matched, it was worse. We speculate
that it's the water. (I once brought home 2 quarts of Los Angeles water
to test against NYC water, but screwed up the tests -- didn't know enough
at the time to do them right anyway.)
The friend changed his paint brand, which had been Grumbacher Academy
(student grade) & found that a big help, but he ultimately stayed with the
Photographer's Formulary gum, better in his equation... (Tho the next year
they may have a different supplier.)
> ...And I'm not sure what lamp black I'm using, to
> tell you the truth. Maybe Grumbacher. It came with a kit I bought a long
> time ago. I don't use black except on monochrome prints, which I make
> fewer of than full color prints, so I don't mix up black very often. I
> was intrigued by your (I think that was you) mention of black gouache in
> the 1996 archives, and may try that sometime, if you're still advocating
> that. Isn't it pretty opaque? But then, so is lamp black when it comes
> to that.
Ah, my late lamented Rowney jet black gouache. I came to the end of the
tube and replaced it with nominally the same, but of 2 years later
manufacture. Couldn't get it to clear, tho maybe it was something else at
the time (haven't used it since) -- like Sam Wang, I think it was, put it,
my facial expression.
As for opaque, this was for one-coat gum, where you want opaque (at least
that's how I figured it). Also was mixed generally with maybe 1/3 to 1/2
watercolor, to avoid (in the manner of the Pictorialists) straight black.
> About the pigment test— some people have already written me about that
> test, so I'm willing to concede that I may very well have got lucky,
> because it was the one and only time I ever used that test.
You may have hit on the secret of the longevity of that whole business
.... by the time people resort to it they have suffered so much that the
gum gods relent ;- )
>... What I was worried about
> was the act of sending the post, getting it to the right address safe
> and sound without crashing the system or something. I'm not a
Which would put you in a goodly and distinguished company...
> computerphobe by any means, but for some reason I've waited til now to
> try the internet and it's all new and strange to me.
Ah, new and strange! I take the opportunity you so graciously provide to
tell folks who taunted me for my ESP (evil service provider) that Panix
got a tech support person (probably downsized from aol) who with two
little adjustments, an x off in "flow" and two digits added to the init
string, solved my connectivity problems. Still, there are the "new and
strange" *human* events, some of them welcome, as your message. We may be
getting a gum caucus going...
cheers,
Judy