From: Keith Gerling (keithgerling@att.net)
Date: 02/04/02-10:12:00 AM Z
The gum process is a finicky one. I often get results far different than
those reported here and elsewhere. Popular pigments won't work, or papers
ranking high with other printers will be useable for me. With the risk of
violating rules of logic concerning cause and effect, I have determined that
the gum process possesses "will" and does what it wants to do!
That said, I must say that the gum-pigment-ratio test has NEVER even come
CLOSE to working for me. Which, of course, is not to say that it won't work
for you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cactus Cowboy [mailto:cactus@tritel.net]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:41 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Anderson again two
Read Judy's "Annals of Gum Control: Part 1" in Post-Factory Photography,
Issue #1, and it's apparent that Judy was so hung up on the limitations of
the "gum-pigment-ratio test" that she just gave up on the test. It's
regrettable that she so harshly criticizes something that she does not fully
understand nor have experience doing.
IMO, the test is not based on a false premise. The test is very helpful
*for those who understand and accept its limitations*. I have used the
"gum-pigment-ratio test" extensively. The test data will point the gum
printer to a good 'starting point', where further testing can be done, using
sensitizer, step wedges, test negatives, and actual exposure. It is a
definite time saver when using new pigments.
Best regards,
Dave Rose
Powell, Wyoming
>
> Judy,
>
> I disagree that the Anderson/Scopick "gum-pigment-ratio test." is
> Based on a false premise. It is obvious that we are not going to agree on
> this issue, so I think it best if we agree to disagree and let the matter
> rest, let history decide!
>
>
> my best wishes
>
> Pete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST