From: Sandy King (sanking@CLEMSON.EDU)
Date: 02/14/02-09:35:50 AM Z
I am interested in this subject also having spent several weeks last
summer in southeastern Utah making negatives of petroglyphs and
pictorgrams at more than two dozen different sites. I made negatives
in 5X7 and 12X20 size, and slides in 6X6. I plan to print many of
these images in carbon, using pigments that match as closely as
possible the colors of the original scene. However, getting enough
contrast in the negative for printing with carbon, where a DR of 1.4
or more is needed, turned out to be pretty challenging, and the use
of filters helped little if at all.
In addition to printing these scenes in carbon I have also had some
success in reproducing these scenes with digital techniques, by
scanning my 5X7 negatives and printing them with the pigment inks of
the Epson C80 and 2000P printers. This allows considerable control of
contrast and an almost exact duplication of the colors of the scene.
Sandy King
>I've extensively photographed petroglyphs and pictographs in the
>Southwestern United States. Black and White, while effective for some rock
>art images, too often appears as just a bland record shot. Cibachrome is
>horrible with this subject matter - too much of a false 'plastic' look. My
>displeasure with conventional materials led in part to my experimenting with
>gum for this particular subject. Gum, using pigments such as carbon black,
>indian red, burnt sienna, raw umber, etc.... is exceptionally well suited
>for rock art images. The rich earth tones available for use in gum printing
>are such a good match for the actual subject - muddy yellow and orange
>sandstones streaked with rich desert varnish. Many of the pigments used by
>indians in creating pictographs are virtually identical to umbers and
>siennas commercially available.
>
>I've also photographed many cloud formations. The sky is an especially
>accessible and appealing subject here in Wyoming. I've made some beautiful
>prints of clouds using combination cyanotype and gum. It's possible to
>create 'mind-blowing sunset' pictures using these two processes with a B&W
>negative original.
>
>Best regards,
>Dave Rose
>Powell, Wyoming
>
>Here's a link to a (straight) digital photo of a recent sunrise in my
>backyard:
>http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/cactigal/msg012003238920.jpg
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Grafist@aol.com>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:13 PM
>Subject: A Process to Suit the Subject
>
>
>> The search goes on,
>> One of my favorite subjects is cloud
>> formations........and then landscape with overtones of abstract forms
>which
>> come from the environment being photographed. Direct Carbon is a lengthy
>> process demanding many tests before settling on a batch of useable
>material
>> tho' much manipulation is possible with sawdust and brushes. Gum does not
>> get reported as being so easy to control whilst the image is sometimes
>lost
>> altogether. Oleobrom, on the other hand, might offer a system which is
>midway
>> between the two processes, rather like Bromoil. Viewing clouds regularly
>in
>> my garden I see, as many people do, suggestions of animals, faces,
>monsters
>> etc.,(I do sometimes get very, very drunk*****JOKE*****) but getting
>these
>> images onto paper presents a problem which could be interesting to explore
>> further. That is my own personal little story. Are there any ideas
>floating
>> around out there regarding the suitability of particular processes for
>> particular subjects? e.g. Portraiture seems to be unsuitable for Bromoil
>> (mentioned in Gene Laughter's recent article in Amateur Photographer
>> magazine). For what subject is Gum most suitable (or not
>suitable).......in
>> YOUR opinion?
>> Best for now. Clouds at night are
>great.
>> John- ftgrfst
>>
>>
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST
