FotoDave@aol.com
Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:36:34 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 11/26/99 3:22:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pete@fotem.demon.co.uk writes:
> 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.
I believe / agree so. In fact, in lithography, the so-called transfer method
is that a piece of drawing paper is coated with diluted gum arabic. Since the
gum is diluted, it is not affected the surface texture of the paper, so the
lithographer can draw on the paper, and then later transfer the drawing to
the stone (quite similar to carbon transfer in a sense that the soluble gum
is dissolved with water).
But for transferrable gum, one must control it so that the exposed area is
exposed enough but not to the base of the paper. If the emulsion is too
thick, then it will work like carbon (then why don't we use carbon?) If it is
too thin, it might expose to the base that the transfer is not possible. The
desired effect is that it is in between so that the paper surface/roughness
still has some effect to the look of the print but still transferrable. I
think such control in emulsion thickness can be very difficult for
hand-coated material.
Dave S
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Check out the Soemarko's Direct Carbon process at
http://hometown.aol.com/fotodave/SDC/SdcIndex.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 05 1999 - 17:09:24