From: pete (temperaprint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 02/01/02-08:50:07 AM Z
Dear Peter, my warmest wishes to you at this cold time of the Year! I
continue to see your excellent writing and photography displayed in many
sources, and always find it an inspiration. And thank you for forwarding
Ms. Seigelıs comments about Paul Anderson and my Gum Bichromate Book.
My research on gum printing started in 1972. While much of the literature
on gum printing had disappeared by the early 70s, I was able to gain some
inspiration from reprints such as the Arno Press Collection The Literature
of Photography, or small sections in books like Gassanıs Handbook for
Contemporary Photography. Locating and working my way through these and
other early texts to get the best information on the process was an arduous
task. The evolving terminology and chemical names added to this difficulty.
As an author, my goal was to make a serious contribution to the literature
of photography. Many of the topics I approached were new to photographic
literature. These included a guide to the terminology of photographs for
correct print editioning (Appendix D, pp. 117-120); colour separation using
a 3-colour technique for gum printing (Steps 13 and 14, pp. 66-82); and
various aspects on the history of photography along with a contemporary
guide to the gum bichromate process.
In reference to the achievement of my book, I would like to quote a letter
written by J.W. Borcoman, then Curator of Photography from the National
Gallery of Canada:
"The book is a timely publication because of the serious interest in
reviving obsolete printing processes. Nothing as detailed as this is
available on the market at this time. Students, photographers, and
historians will find it of considerable use. For historians, one of the
most important parts of it is a carefully prepared and extensive
bibliography.
We require more people to conduct work of this worth with the kind of
intelligence and dedication that Mr. Scopick has shown..."
Paul Andersonıs methods appeared in my First Edition (1978, pp. 34-36). I
felt them to be the most helpful that I found in the literature of gum
printing, and Iıd adapted them to my own practice. I feel they remain as a
good reference within my Second Edition.
If anyone had difficulty with the use of Andersonıs pigment test, then I
certainly would have tried to offer some suggestions. Iım always pleased to
receive comments, and since the name of my college is on the back cover, Iım
easy to find. (I prefer a direct conversation since virtual contact is
never as satisfying for me, and always more time consuming to get one's
viewpoint.)
I submit that there is only one conclusive and absolute method for testing
your gum pigment ratio for printing: the final print! Otherwise, there is
no definitive procedure for evaluation. Still, Anderson offers an excellent
approach for those wishing to observe pigment behavior and for making
comparative analysis with various manufacturers and colours. In that
regard, it remains the best experiment I know, particularly remarkable for
its time, and is helpful for my work. Nothing more.
Before publishing my First and Second Editions, I introduced all the methods
to my students for testing. I have never received other criticism or
complaints from my students, or the thousands of readers of my book, that
they were unable to better their techniques with my information. If Ms.
Seigel has other methods that she feels produce more accurate or useful
results, then I am delighted! But I wonder why she continues to suggest my
book has "misinformed" gum literature, as opposed to the accuracy and
virtues of her own methods? Would that not be a more productive discussion?
Then any readers of my book who are sufficiently interested in the opinions
that Ms Seigel has written, can have more information to work from and we
can go forward. Right?
Ms. Seigel suggests that she has the facts about where I got my information.
Her reference "then there was the plasticizingı gum for using dry pigments,
taken from Mayer..." is incorrect. My information was based on the methods
of Leyland Whipple. Whipple is listed in my bibliography under "Unpublished
Manuscripts," which I located at the International Museum of Photography,
George Eastman House. Given he was unpublished, I wanted to locate another
reference, which led me to Ralph Mayer. I knew Mayer could be useful to
photographers, especially since his book was an "Artistıs Handbook," and had
not been previously named in photography books. I would also clarify that I
got Andersonıs methods from a 1934 6th edition of Henney and Dudley.
The only difficulty I have heard from using powder pigments with a
plasticizer were a result of not adding the required amount of gum arabic.
In such a case they are not a workable formulae. Still, any book only
attempts to provide a range of information for the reader to examine. I
donıt feel that it is positive for an author to suggest they have the
definitive method to pursue, since time will always provide advancements.
Similarly, if I were to specify my favourite pigments or printing paper, it
would be disheartening for printers to find them discontinued in North
America. My objective was to make the book an accurate, readable, useful
reference, full of ideas and suggestions.
If anyone wishes to view my gum prints, a good source is John Schaeferıs
Ansel Adams Guide 2. My gum print is featured on the back cover as well as
5 within the text. There is also a section I wrote on gum printing: pp.
238-241. Recently, I have been very active travelling to a list of
international exhibitions and lectures featuring my work. My exhibition in
Venezuela recorded 44,046 visitors, following which the curator wrote, "You
would be very proud of your work if you could have been here (stayed) to
witness their reactions... They just loved it... We are very happy..."
In my performance with gum printing, I have a very impressive track record.
You know a lot about my skills and the history of my work from our joint
workshops and symposium with John Pollard in Australia. I have published
and exhibited extensively, and I am internally recognized. I am also a
full professor at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto. I
wonder why Ms. Seigel wishes to make an ongoing attempt to discredit my work
and my efforts that have contributed much to the revival and future of gum
printing? What is the problem here?
I am sure from Ms. Seigelıs reputation that she is a good photographer and
printer. If she doesnıt like my work or book, then why continue to draw on
my many accolades when it should be more worth her time to discuss her
personal worth and findings? I am more concerned with advancing my own
photography and professional commitments than dwelling on small points that
are better left to individuals to decide for themselves. I intend to move
forward.
Wishing you all the best and life forever with the joys of photography,
David Scopick, January 31, 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST