From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 08/03/03-08:11:29 AM Z
>
> Ok you then agree that pigment stain is a function of sizing?
> Why not size? When one considers the work one goes to to make a gum print
a
> bit more time to size the paper seems to be well worth it. No one I know
of
> makes gums because they're easy, or do they?
Caveat: all the notes, below, are IMP! In my practice.
I agree that one reason for pigment stain can be related to sizing, but for
me, pigment stain has been too much color load in the gum with only a few
colors--quinacridones and thalos and carbon black. The amount of those
colors I had in my gum was exorbitant and I had to back off not because of
staining issues but because the mix was too saturated a chroma.
I do think that sometimes "pigment stain" gets confused with overexposure.
If you bake on a coat the color veils the highlights as well and won't
budge. The Tokyo Morning image, for instance, on Ed Buffaloe's website, is
the "olden days" technique of what was called a "tonal" layer--where you do
a long exposure first highlight layer with a mild pigment load to tone the
whole print--in that image's case it is yellow. It's not stain, it is
overexposure.
To answer your question of why not size, it didn't occur to me not to size
until this list. I had been taught a laborious sizing process that made gum
printing appeal to very few die hard students. We tray sized in a hot
bathroom with gelatin dripping everywhere, a hot plate plugged in to keep
the stuff warm, you really had to do it naked to put up with the process.
I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.
Then I finally read the Livick book that I had on my shelf for years, and in
it he said that there are papers that don't need size. When bringing it up
on the list, certain gum printers on the list also said they NEVER size, and
these are also ones who never have staining issues. Livick, when sizing,
does brush his on, so that in itself would save immense time, and there are
those including Livick who do not tray size because of other problems that I
won't elaborate here.
Bingo, I thought! I also found throughout literature from the 1800's on
that not all sized.
With sizing you get a higher contrast image (a "harder" image they would say
in the old books) and more chance of the coating sloughing off with
underexposure (which would be aided by Miracle Muck I would think, or
greater exposure, or making sure to size not too much). I don't have to
worry about these problems. However, if I were doing the many multiple
coats with thin layers that some gum printers do, you'd almost have to size
I would think. I use more pigment in my mix, up to as high as 6g/12 ml, and
would not need to multiple coat that many times. I only need, in fact, to
multiple coat if I want to vary the color--which I always do.
It's a big step to save time on, if eliminated, for sure. Think of
this--whip out a piece of Rives BFK, pigment/gums all mixed into little
nalgene bottles--50 of those little bottles with colors of the rainbow
lining the walls--a bottle of saturated dichromate all ready to go, a couple
little petri dishes, a beaker of water to stick your brush in, and a 1/4
tsp measure. I just come into my room, plop 1/4 tsp of pigmented gum on a
petri dish, 1/4 tsp of dichromate of choice, mix with a martini stirring
rod, brush with a $4 hake, and go. If I want to lessen my pigment load, I
plop in straight gum arabic and a drop of the colored pigmented gum. All
done in a normally lit room, and aided with a hair drier.
> I am sure you have read Bright Earth as you seem to be quite up on your
> sources.
NOOO, oh no, another book I want...thanx for the source.
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:45 AM Z CST