Digital vs. Gum

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Cactus Cowboy (photo@wir.net)
Date: 09/29/00-12:34:39 AM Z


Gregory Parkinson wrote:

(snip)
as digital processes improve it is possible to
> > create the _look_ of anything an alt process can do. I've been

Judy Seigel responded:

(snip)
> Not QUITE the look -- maybe in repro, but there's a tactile sense to gum
> printing at least that inkjet lacks.

I completely agree with Judy. I can't imagine any digital process that
could ever duplicate the essence of a well-made gum print.

I was made painfully aware of gum's unique qualities when I set out to shoot
4x5 copy transparencies of my gum prints. To get halfway decent results, I
had to polarize/filter both the tungsten lights and my camera lens. The
transparencies are beautiful, but pale in comparison to seeing and holding
the actual prints.

Gum especially appeals to me for its unique qualities. Although I've been
able to make very similar multiple prints of the same image (by making two
or three prints at each session), this doesn't always work. Some gum prints
are simply unreproducable. There are too many serendipitous variables that
have led me to create a truly outstanding print, and then caused me untold
wasted hours, materials, and grief in a futile attempt to repeat the
results.

Cactus Cowboy
Powell, Wyoming


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT