Re: Stuart again on gum

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 11/15/02-08:54:01 AM Z


Hmm.. I thought you weren't even sposed to say you knew. Oh well.

Stuart is gonna tell all, its only fair he gets first publication rights to it.

Yes there is something to look forwards to.

I find it interesting that there are several contracts out for historical
negatives to be printed in gum-over platinum. As little as 3 years ago gum
over was only a blip on the platinum radar. Ever since Stuart went public
with it at APIS 2001 and his article in View Camera it has taken off and
from our perspective her at B+S it has become more or less a standard
process. At least standard enough that some archives are looking for re
strikes in the gum over medium.

--Dick

At 03:32 PM 11/14/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Well, I gotta confess that I've been let in on parts of the secret (under
>pain-of-death if I reveal it). I've been using the 'new' gum for about a
>month, and yes, it rocks. Stuart SHOULD be smiling. Its pretty interesting.
>So far, I've been using it mostly for gum-over work, but it excels at that
>as well, and makes them much easier to do in a single coat. I feel I should
>do some tub-thumping for Stuart's new approach. He's really onto something.
>Stay tuned. Mysterious ingredients and hardware store trips all figure into
>the story.....
>
>Clay
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
>Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 3:17 PM
>Subject: Stuart again on gum
>
>
> > Clay,
> >
> > I believe you saw some of Stuart Melvin's gums and gum-overs either at
> > Platypus or at the ABQ View Camera Conference. They were quite jaw
>dropping
> > to say the least, as an old time traditional gum printer myself, I was
>dumb
> > struck.
> >
> > Stuart was by the factory the other day and was quite excited, he was
> > really beside himself as he said he has made another discovery about gum
> > printing and says this one tops the others. If I can describe it correctly
> > he has found a way to add as much pigment as you want without flaking or
> > staining. He thought he had stumbled on a rather stunning new discovery.
> > Now Stuart is a pretty calm fellow and this time he was grinning from ear
> > to ear. Having seen his earlier work one would have to take Stuart at his
> > word.
> >
> > A N D... he is finally writing a book. He says his plans are for February
> > of 2003 for publication. We will have it as soon as it is ready.
> >
> > I'd also like to put in a plug for Stephen Livick one of the modern
>masters
> > of the gum print: www.livick.com Stephen sparked the flames of some of the
> > new innovators in gum by teaching a B+S online class several years ago.
> >
> > There is much to be said for the traditional gum print but I for one am
> > excited to see folks like Stuart venture off and improve the breed so to
> > speak. Bostick & Sullvian is now well into its 3rd decade of existence and
> > for the first 2 decades most everything was based on 100 year old
> > technology. People, myself included, were slavish over doing this the
> > "right" way was which was the traditional way. Now we are seeing new
> > innovations in the alt processes and a sure sign that in this digital age
> > the genre is alive and well.
> >
> > B+S just bought another 1800 sq ft building to complement our existing
>2500
> > sq ft one. The new one is across the street and will be the Carbon Annex.
> > We too are alive and well.
> >
> >
> > --Dick Sullivan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 08:11 AM 11/14/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> > >Temi:
> > >
> > >I'm a relative newbie to gum, but after a year of lurking on the list and
> > >doing some gums and gumovers, my sense is that most people on the list
>are
> > >probably using gelatin to size their prints. I too was looking for
> > >something 'easier' than gelatin, and tried PVA, acrylic and some other
> > >'packaged' solutions. None worked as well as gelatin, and I have found
> > >that real gelatin is just not that hard to manage, once you do it a few
> > >times. I mix up quantities as small as 125ml, coat a few sheets and then
> > >toss it. I use the 'Livick' one step sizing formula with glyoxal and it
> > >seems to work just fine. I'm not trying to convince you one way or the
> > >other, but just propose a possible reason for the lack of responses.
> > >
> > >
> > >Clay
> > >
> > >On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 07:43 AM, Temi wrote:
> > >
> > >>Good Morning, Since I did not receive any replies to the message below,
> > >>I decided to resend in case it got lost with the many email that come
> > >>each day. Temi
> > >>
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Temi
> > >>Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 8:45 PM
> > >>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > >>Subject: GUM - STARCH - ?????
> > >>
> > >>Hello,
> > >>If instead of using a gelatin size when making gum dichromate prints, I
> > >>use a spray starch before coating, would it be best or necessary to
> > >>re-spray with starch between layered coats of the gum?
> > >>Thanks for your advise.
> > >>Temi
> > >
> >


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST