From: Richard Sullivan FRPS (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 10/01/01-12:56:32 PM Z
A while ago I posted a message on ball milling pigments for gum. Someone
raised the question about the use of polysorbate (Tween 20) and it's
supposed effect on staining in a gum print. A quick test on some well sized
paper seems to indicate staining is not a problem but in some cases it
could be. Note that Polysorbate is not the same as Photoflo which has a
devastating effect on breaking down size.
If in fact, as absurd as it seems you want to make your own ball milled
pigment use the formula I showed earlier. Let it sit for a day and the
pigment will settle to the bottom. Pour off the liquid off the top add
water back to the level. Decant once again. Now you can use the thicken
portion in the bottom. Most of the Polysorbate will have been washed out.
500 gm of ball milled pigment done this way will provide you and 25 of your
gum printing friends with a lifetime supply of that color.
Now for a second issue: This is a lot of trouble compared to buying a tube
of W+N but I think that for many here that is not the point. Part of the
joy of alt photo is the "I did it myself" sense of satisfaction. There is
among us those with the desire to reduce the technological depth of the
processes, that is to be able to make as as much of the print as they can
themselves. I suspect if I were a dedicated gum printer it might even be
fun to dig some ochre in Italy, grind it, and re sediment it myself. Nutty?
Sure. But there is some absurd satisfaction in knowing you dug the umber
out of an abandoned Roman mine in Umbria. There is the satisfaction of
having learned something about pigments in general. Great for party talk:
"Sure I'm a photographer, just got back from digging some pigment out of
the hills in Umbria...."
There are those like Ernestine Ruben who make their own paper as well. I
think it would be an interesting project to make photographs using only
technology Z(not knowledge) available in 1500. For example:
Find the right sand
make glass in a furnace
grind lens...and so on, you get the point.
I got my basics studying at UCLA in the early 70's. It was there I learned
that there was serious photography and not-so-serious. Those who made "art"
showed in galleries, got NEA grants, got published in Aperture -- they were
serious -- the rest didn't count. Stay as far away from them as you can, as
they pollute your career. (Well you can teach them in workshops but don't
get much closer.)
I've changed and over the years and I've seen the other side. (They do a
great part to help pay my bills but that is beside the point.) I have a
great deal of respect for the hobby photographer now. This is the person
who may or not harbor pretenses to show at MOMA, but in effect is dedicated
to the craft of photography and derives a great deal of pleasure from it.
Some are obsessed with the craft side of photography and the image may only
be a vehicle for tinkering with processes. Oh horrors! Craft? When was the
last time anyone saw anything on craft at an SPE conference?
So with this in mind is it absurd for one to make ones own pigments from
dry powders when there is no savings in cost?
The issue of the pigment grind comes up. The fineness of grind in general
determines the color. As the grind goes finer the pigment grows paler. Case
in point: grind some cherry Life Savers in a mortar. The finer you grind it
the paler it gets. As stated before ball milling only makes the pigment
disperse into solution better.
(Trivia: Go into a dark room and let your eyes adjust to the light for 5
minutes and with you mouth open bite a wintergreen Life saver. Make it
snap. it will flash a light as you do it. really!
--Dick Sullivan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST