From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 05/06/00-02:19:39 PM Z
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Sarah Van Keuren wrote:
>
> Judy, as you know, gum bichromate is my favorite medium also, but I wonder
> about its ability to render fine detail in the explicit way that some
> photographers desire. The fact that the image is comprised of bits of
> pigment that are huge compared to the atoms or molecules that comprise
> palladium or vandyke would make me think otherwise. Also, while YOU may be
> able to make a satisfactory gum print in one layer, I need at least two
> layers and usually 3, 4 or 5. This makes the issue of registration or slight
> lack of thereof significant.
Actually Sarah, just between us, I agree. That is, although I have made a
point that gum CAN do fine detail, and it can under a variety of
conditions, and I was delighted to see that point made IN PRINT, that's
not its long strong suit. And we'd almost certainly agree that gum can
render whatever detail any person not substituting detail for content,
feeling, or imagination (pardon the expression, "vision") would want. But
when I see the gum print next to the same negative rendered in cyanotype
or whatchamacallit (starts with "p") or VDB, I have to admit the *look*
isn't as, um, dainty.
As for the "bits of pigment" that are "huge," however, with the long soaks
possible with various approaches those huge bits are to considerable
extent *melted* away (or so I feel safe in asserting, having never
actually measured them, tho also aware that the bits have a very different
character in contone & digital negs).
> The layered glazes that comprise gum prints are like amber strata containing
> different pigments. Depending on the angle of viewing it seems possible that
> sharpness could subtly change. This gives a depth of detail that to me is
> more satisfying that finer surface rendition. What really attracts me to
> gum, however, is the sense of sculptural volume and atmosphere that is
> possible with it.
Possibly so, tho I've never thought in those terms before. But to me so
far one of gum's major attractions (if not THE major) is that it permits
me to *shape* the picture, to bring out what somehow I sensed was there
but that wasn't apparent in the straight print. So I add and subtract (in
3 or 4 layers, which is *this* year) and... there it is !!! Which is to
say the print is maybe pre-sensed, but not pre-visualized, or only dimly.
And the process is "interactive," like painting. You see what you've got &
decide what to do next. (And from your description [P-F #3, p.35], you're
another.)
Still, however one titrates "detail," it's inevitably sharper in multiple
coats with a rigid substrate. That has its own problems, some of which I
am tangling with now...I would at this point call it a trade off-- sharp
for hassle. (More on that, whenever.)
Judy
> Sarah Van Keuren
>
>
> Judy Seigel wrote to Ken Carney on 5/6/00:
>
> > 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