Re: About that pigment test

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/18/01-02:40:23 AM Z


On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Dave Rose wrote:

> >From "Annals of Gum Control: Part 1" in Post-Factory Photography Issue 1,
> Seigel writes: "Dutifully running this test one day with fresh paper, on a
> whim I tried it on preshrunk paper. Oops, the result was completely
> different."
>
> Well, DUH!!!.... why bother telling us the obvious?

But Dave, dear, it's different for each re-exposure, which does reduce its
usefulness, if any. And I myself often did a one-coat gum on fresh paper,
which was conpletely different... Nor do I understand the reluctance to do
a complete test -- WITH the dichromate.

> Common sense dictates that "the paper used for printing" is preshrunk,
> sized, and hardened.

Well, "common sense" is so often utterly wrong in all these processes.
And I'll add that I have an upcoming article about gum prints by Martin
Lennon showing his MARVELOUS prints, usually, but not always, over
cyanotype on entirely unsized paper...

As for "Seigel slamming Crawford" --- that's fiction. I think he was an
amazing pioneer, and given the state of knowledge at the time, absolutely
remarkable, which is why he's been a classic for so long... As I've said
many times, probably on this very list. What Seigel loses patience with is
the cut-and-paste out of Crawford of one of his (so far as I know) two
errors.... which is of course a tribute to Crawford -- he's the one to
copy.

love & kisses,

Judy


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST