Re: Digital negatives for gum printing

[lva <lva@pamho.net>]

> Gordon J. Holtslander wrote:
> >
> >
> > A friend of mine is trying out gum printing.  To get started he
> > printed out a negtive on transparency film on his laser-printer at
> > work.
> >
> > He got a decent looking single coat gum print on his first try.  He
> > asked me if this was cheating.


Interesting and difficult question. It depends on what he wants to
achieve and how *he* feels about it.

If he wants a 'classical' photographic gum print, the concept of a
digital negative seems slightly odd.

But if he wants to create 'art', anything goes. Did Andy Warhol cheat by
using photos and silk screen printing to create 'paintings' on canvas?
He didn't hide the silk screen process. He was happy with those big
dots, wasn't he? Or take the Dutch masters, did they cheat by using
camera obscuras to compose their paintings? Or Ansel Adams ("straight"
photography activist), did he cheat by burning and dodging his prints?

Cheating implies that one wants to hide something. If your friend wants
to hide the fact that he's using hi-tech by getting the image to look as
if it were created with a continuous tone negative, well, then he might
be cheating.

Greetings from Sweden

Brahma