peter fredrick (pete@fotem.demon.co.uk)
Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:19:52 +0000
Judy wrote --:
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Jeffrey D. Mathias wrote:
> I am puzzled how this can not just be a Gum print without a transfer as
> I had thought the major difference between Gum and Carbon was in the
> removal of the unexposed gelatin/pigment (from surface with Carbon and
> from underneath for Gum), unless it is molded as with a Woodburytype.
>>What gum and carbon have in common is that the hardening agent is a
dichromate and the color is (often) pigment. The differences are
everything else, including that gum arabic and gelatin are entirely
different animals, so to speak. However, if anyone is removing unexposed
pigment from *underneath* in gum, I hope they'll share..<<.
I see no reason why the gum process could not be used in the carbon
transfer manner, the parameters of emulsion thickness and and transfer
adhesion would have to be found.However the only positive advantage that I
can see in this course of action would be to allow for cold working,
temperature control can be a major problem with Carbon. The image quality
is bound to be very different from the normal gum print if there is such a
thing ?
Pete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 05 1999 - 17:09:24