From: Keith Gerling (kgerling@ameritech.net)
Date: 05/06/00-10:57:25 AM Z
"One fellow said he'd tried gum & failed for 10 years, then his first print
"by the book" ("Judy's book") was "splendid."
I think I may be that fellow! At least these were my comments. Yes, I've
read most of what was available on gum printing up to two years ago. Much
of it is either confusing or hogwash. Judy's P-F#1 has everything you need.
She certainly put me on the right track, and I've been printing gum almost
exclusively ever since.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 11:12 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: "course" in gum, & Re: course of true love
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Kenneth Carney wrote:
CUT=====
> > However, the minute he's opened it, HE will be transmitting the virus to
> > everyone on HIS list (see Chris's vivid description). And they of course
> > will sue HIM and so on ad infinitum. What more could we ask?
> You ask, what more could we ask? As we are taught in law school,
> surely no one is truly responsible for his or her own actions. That
> is self-evident, else how could the legal system survive? Like many
> lay persons, you do not realize that more, not less litigation, is
> better for society. In each lawsuit that goes to trial, there is a
> loser and a winner. Now, if I open an email attachment without
> thought and wipe my hard drive, obviously I have a cause of action,
> and will hire an attorney to collect the damages> rightfully due.
> But, what if a result-oriented judge rules that I
should
> have known how to use my computer? Obviously, I will sue the attorney who
> represented me for malpractice. If I win, that attorney will reflect on
his
> misfortune and realize that he received an inadequate legal education.
> Therefore, he will sue his law school, which may go out of business as a
> result. I have not worked out the math, but as a rough guess a four-fold
> increase in unfounded litigation might result in extinction of lawyers
> within a generation or so. I'll think about some more while I'm driving
out
> of the McDonald's with some superheated coffee between my legs.
>
> In a desparate attempt at Redemption, i.e., getting on topic. I would like
> to try some gum prints. Could you please recommend a text that will get
me
> started? Thx.
Ken, clearly you could have a brilliant career in social analysis, but if
you insist on moving into the arts there is no finer, richer, more
challenging medium than gum printing. As for a "text" -- ahhhh, have I
mentioned ecstatic testimonials received about Post-Factory #1 as the
ultimate best? One fellow said he'd tried gum & failed for 10 years, then
his first print "by the book" ("Judy's book") was "splendid."
If your #1 has been lost or strayed I can send you those pages as a pay
off for your cream puff question -- the supply gets too low to send out
dupes, even for a prince such as yourself. I'll add however that there
are MANY routes to gum, and I've found that some folks print beautiful
gums by methods that *shouldn't* work, but somehow do for them.
The Annals of Gum Control in P-F #1 does however have the facts straight,
debunks a lot of the mumbo jumbo & covers the basics, with diagrams &
illustrations. The "Famous Gum-Intro Exercise (First Step into Gum)," use
tested, or rather evolved, via waves of students is a very good segue into
the process -- and the format of testing I still use.
I have recently seen two more books on gum, which I would NOT recommend
(for reasons large & small). If however, you feel like buying a book (they
are dandy to have around the house), I haven't fully parsed it yet (how
can I parse anything if I don't get off email?), but the Spirits of Salts
gum chapter is good reading & the color reproductions run the gamut of
gum's talents.
True, it does say some things I am forced by a higher power to take issue
with (ie., "liquid glue" instead of gum arabic, ammonium dichromate to be
"avoided" for reasons not specified, etc.) but the mindset, or *attitude*
seems to me to hit just the right note. And for this paragraph I would
forgive far worse sins than those cited above:
=========QUOTE Spirits of Salts ==============
...Contrary to received opinion, gum prints can be made to resolve fine,
sharp detail. A gum print made by contact from a 10x8" negative shows as
much detail as any other type of printing method. The misapprehension that
gum prints have always to be fuzzy stems from multiple printing. The lack
of accurate registration on each subsequent coating and printing gives the
appearance of unsharpness....
UNQUOTE==============
I've never seen that in print by anyone except myself. In fact the
boilerplate "gum can't do fine detail" attaches like a barnacle to almost
every mention of the medium. Or has to date. I understand that
Photographers' Formulary is revising the advisory that accompanies its
"gum kit," which is also being revised, so perhaps one source of that
canard will enter oblivion. The subject of "gum kit," however is something
else. I see that as a false promise, in the name of *ease* ultimately
hobbling the beginner... And hardly an economy. But that's another topic
altogether, isn't it?
cheers,
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:17 PM Z CST