<P>As I sit here, in the California fog, with 2nd latte @ hand, after feeding
the birds and watching the tal-less squirrel w/one front paw missing, and
after having my morning hot tub midst cries of chirping birds, and come
down to see this query … I have an answer to what <B>alt photo</B> is.
<P><U>anything which is made outside of convention derived from the origin.</U>
<P>Okay, what that gobbleygook mean? My intent is to say that the original
intent of photography was to present a clear and unbiased view of that
which is before one. If you do not mind the use of reality, well, that
is what is before one. No arguments for intended or unintended subjective
personal idiosyncratic viewpoints.
<P><B>All</B> other processes using the same light sensitivity of certain
chemical products outside of this could be called <B>alt</B>.
<BR>Alternative means : option, selection, choice, discretionl. Subsets
of this include meanings such as :
<BR>preference, election, selection, opportunity, preference and free-will.
<P>So, if you accept that the origin is the sum total of Talbot, Niepce,
Daguerre, Bayard et al, there have a multitude of light sensitive methods
to reproduce reality … including the cyanotype concocted by Herschel almost
at the same moment of conception.
<P>Too, there wqas a somewhat straightforward method of making these processes
consistent. Deviations from those conventions, to affect, or to produce
effective results, I would say are alternative.
<P>Not to stir the pot too much, but I remember being @ a talk by Beaumont
Newhall, when he drove up to the auditorium in Ansel Adams Cadillac w/the
"Zone V" license plates, and he admitted that Steiglitz was not a straight
photographer … and, for goodness sakes, if you look @ Ansel himself, that
buzzard may not have ever made anything but alt photos. You know what I
mean, push this, pull that, filter this, etc.
<P>The sum total is that gum, pl/pd, Zia, cyano, VeeDeeBee, what-have-you,
up to an including lensless photography such as cliché verre &
photogram work is <B>all</B> alternative.
<BR>
<P>Am I on the right track?
<P>Sincerely,
<BR>and through the fruitfull thoughts of fun,
<BR>I remain,
<P>Jack Fulton</HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Tue Jun 23 16:53:27 1998
Return-Path: <alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca>
Received: from skybat.usask.ca (skybat.usask.ca [128.233.1.27])
by mail.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with SMTP id IAA04149;
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process.sask.usask.ca by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.1-10 #27648)
id <01IYKKN7NV3K9AMI9W@sask.usask.ca>
(original mail from tomf2468@pipeline.com); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:35:15 CST
Received: from camel8.mindspring.com by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.1-10 #27648)
with ESMTP id <01IYKKN6V4Z29AMI5D@sask.usask.ca> for
alt-photo-process-l-expand@process.sask.usask.ca; Tue,
23 Jun 1998 09:34:42 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [38.12.87.109]
(ip109.los-angeles7.ca.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.87.109])
by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA24606 for
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:34:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:35:56 -0800
From: Tom Ferguson <tomf2468@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Gum Printing/Observations
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.94.980622160343.18772B-100000@panix2.panix.com>
X-Sender: tomf2468@pop.pipeline.com
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
Message-id: <l03130300b1b584a3dbc5@[38.29.10.43]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: <l03130301b1b435d4f910@[38.29.10.43]>
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
X-UIDL: f500beb794a8d96bc1bcc0743f21931f
Judy wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Tom Ferguson wrote:
>> I also had good luck with BFK (and Tri-Ess "hard" gelatin and glyoxal), but
>> eventually settled on Lana paper<SNIP>
>
>Tom, tell me again which "Lana" paper you're using. I know we had this
>discussion, but the fact that I used a paper called "Lana" that had no wet
>strength <SNIP>
I'm using Lana (brand name) Lanaquarelle (product name). You can get it
from Daniel Smith (#RJ7920222). That is the 140lbs hot press. It is also
available in coldpress or rough or 300lbs versions. Arches and others also
make "Lanaquarelle (product name)" papers, which do not work the same for
gum work. The texture of this paper is a bit more glossy/smooth than BFK.
BFK seems to get a bit soft and "hairy" after a few coats/baths for my
taste.
>[Tom's gum printing axioms]:
>
>> 1) Coating technique, learn that less is better. Use as little solution as
>> possible.
>>
>> 2) Paper, settle on one or two papers and learn them. Changing paper will
>> change everything else.
>>
>> 3) Sizing and hardening. I can only assume that this is another water
>> issue. Judy and I got entirely different results. She got good results
>> with Knox food gelatin and poor results with hard gelatins, I got exactly
>> the opposite??? And yes, I did repeat that test??? But I think everyone
>> who uses gum and gelatin has gotten better results hardening with glyoxal
>> than with the old standard formalin.
>>
>> 4) Paint, not just a brand, but individual colors vary greatly in usability.
>>
>
>I pretty much endorse Tom's four axioms of gum printing as above <SNIP>
I forgot to add #5 (least important)... Brand of gum. In my limited tests
(Photographers Formulary, Tri-Ess, Daniel Smith) I found this a variable,
but less important than the ones above.
>SNIP>But what occursto me now -- surely each gelatin is different, I
>mean beyond just hard and soft. Where did you get your hard gelatin?
<SNIP>
My hard gelatin is from Tri-Ess in Burbank. The only other gelatin I've
tested was Knox. I also tried Gesso very early on, but didn't like the
texture. It looked more like a print on plastic than paper. The good news
is the Tri-Ess seems to be consistant. I've bought bottles years apart and
they seem to work the same. They use to call it 250 bloom (?? I think),
now they just call it "hard".
katharine thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com> wrote:
>With all this talk about how much success depends on sticking with
>the combination that works for you, I'm a bit reluctant to switch,
>because everything is going fine as is.
A very valid option! The trick to testing (in all media, not just gum) is
to only change one thing at a time. This is harder than it sounds. But
with gum brands, a simple test should be valid, just make sure you have
some of your "current" gum left, so you can see if the "new" gum is an
improvement or not. And, remember to do the test with a few differant
colors!
tomf2468@pipeline.com (Tom Ferguson)