From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 07/03/03-10:42:01 AM Z
> Christina wrote:
> Maybe the reason am di gets a bad rap in gum sometimes is people don't
> > realize how fast it is, and overexpose, and thus their image gets
> > overprinted highlights.
Jack wrote:
> From my experience in the arts many see their world of art and technique
> from an anarcist-selfcentered viewpoint. Most of that is valuable in their
> work, but it creates an unrealized desire to reject what ever is the norm.
> Ammonium bichromate is the customary sensitizer these days. We all know
that
> in the past people used other bichromates. So people go off expressing
their
> individuality by trying and making claims for other sensitizers. The old
> literature is full of half-cocked ideas written by semiliterates who want
us
> to believe how important their work is when it seems their only real claim
> is that they did it differently. But since they can't write we aren't even
> sure of that. And since the art of printing did not afford them the chance
> to illustrate their writing with meaningfull illustrations we cant tell
from
> the images.
> None of the above is criticism of you Chris, only a cautionary about the
> value of following all the old formulas one can find. Most are hopelessly
> incomplete, unclear, or intentionally misleading.
> Thankyou Sandy for the clear comments on sensitizers.
> Jack Brubaker
>
Jack,
Actually, the criticism about am di is *current* criticism, not from
back then. So it seems your apt critique, above, is way more useful to
those of us today, including, and especially, for those of us on this list.
I have seen more "one right way-ness" on this alt list than I have *ever*
encountered in arcane books--and I've probably gone through in the hundreds
by now.
And, interestingly, there are lots of illustrations in the books I am
going through, actual (I'm not sure of the term, photogravures?) color
plates of the prints inserted, that are quite beautiful. But, yes, they
aren't the originals.
What I find throughout the literature on gum is no one criticizes
Demachy's work. At least from within the field of gum printers. He,
apparently, was renowned and praised throughout the photographic community
and is used as a benchmark of the process. Gum printers in general may be
criticized from outside the field, of course, as being too pictorial or
schmaltzy. (And from within the field I came across the derogatory term
"gum crank" for those who don't do the process well.)
So with the respect commanded by Demachy I happen to feel his way of
doing things probably carries validity still today. To me, for instance, I
find that in quite a few references Demachy was quoted to have used as much
as 50% gum/water (the latter he says himself) for his gum arabic mix! I
find that curious, that in his day he used a much thicker gum solution, even
thicker than what I quoted here a while back of 30-35% from his Maskell
book. That, to me, is arcane info worth testing, and worth talking about,
and may benefit someone's practice.
I figured it would be interesting to others on the list if I shared the
info from the history of gum--I've got the resources here to do so, and
there may be some little picky point that *someone* somewhere out there
picks up and runs with--whether it be lemon juice, ammonia, methyl alcohol,
presensitizing paper with dichromate, using a hair dryer, sodium dichromate,
manganese sulfate or what have you. Now, I feel, from your comments (not
just yours but others, too) that my sharings may be leading people down the
proverbial rabbit hole.
Perhaps all of the past is useless and only what matters is what is
going on now. I, personally, find it interesting enough to test, and post
my forays with hope for more sharing dialogue about these things. So far,
it seems that these things engender more critique and less sharing so
frankly, it ain't worth my time--especially affirmed by your appending
thanks to Sandy for his "clear comments", which, whether you intended it or
not, in the context given implies the opposite about mine.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have my undies in a bundle over this, I
just find it all very....curious and even a bit humorous at times (e.g. a
"sharing" list, but what exactly should one "share"?)and almost endearing--a
bit like my scientist dad (deceased now 9 yr, bless his soul) patting me on
the head as I go off on another tangent.
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 08/07/03-03:34:49 PM Z CST