Re: lemon juice and gum printing, other questions

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Jack Brubaker (jack@jackbrubaker.com)
Date: 07/03/03-05:47:15 PM Z


Chris,

I share your concern that reporting experiments can be a confusion to
beginners. But experimentation is important and better reported than left to
each of us to think of and do each experiment ourselves. I appreciate your
trying to chase down posibilities. I think I was frustrated at not being
able to figure out what you were saying. The confusion about which is high
contrast and which is low contrast had me at a loss.

Many of us speculate about what our experience with bichromates mean. Clear
answers are often obscured by the sensitizers complex interactions with
other ingredients and differing methods. I remain very happy to have had
Sandy straighten out the contrast issue and give very clear statements from
his long experience with bichromates. Sorry if that seemed a criticism of
you.

Jack

> From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:42:01 -0500
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: lemon juice and gum printing, other questions
>
>> 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


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 08/07/03-03:34:49 PM Z CST