From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 06/13/03-10:16:51 PM Z
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> ... There are theories abounding on why staining occurs--Demachy
> essentially said it was too watery of a mixture or too much pigment to gum,
> so you could work with these two factors (lessen water, lessen pigment along
> with for SURE changing your paper) and try again.
Let's not forget that Demachy was using a very different paper from ours,
with no sizing or at most a starch size, and only printing ONE COAT. And
brilliant and talented as he was, he was starting de novo and following
reports of only a few colleagues -- circumstances under which it isn't
just easy, but inevitable, to come to false conclusions, or generalize
from too little info, as I believe he has in this case.
In any event, I have consistently found that thinning the gum makes a
smoother, better coat, with less flaking, and no greater staining. There's
also the fact that we don't know what the hell Demachy was using for gum.
He probably mixed it himself, it may have been sour, which changes its
behavior, and .... how thick was it to begin with?
> ... I do think your first problem is the paper choice, as Katharine
pointed
> out. Try Rives BFK or Fabriano Uno or Bockingford or Arches Aquarelle.
> Sizing methods are too numerous to mention here. You can harden the
> gelatin with chrome alum, glyoxal, or formaldehyde; there is also starch,
> spray starch, gum arabic, acrylic, gesso, lots of choices and dilutions. It
> is best to start with the best paper support first. Rives BFK is so cheap
> per sheet that it is not a big deal: $4 for the largest size (29x42 is it?)
> makes each 8x10 well under a dollar.
In my experience nothing is as useful as a Stouffer 21-step.... it
quantifies your tests, for both fine and gross distinctions. Which is to
say, there are few if any "facts" to be gathered from printing with a
given negative, only the news of how that particular negative printed with
those particular ingredients.
> Lately I have been experimenting with no preshrink, no size, Rives BFK,
> coat, dry expose, coat, dry expose, coat, dry expose and then one final
> develop, with a time of exposure of maybe let's say yellow first for 4
> minutes (UV) then red for 2 and blue for 2. I have not perfected this what
> I call Berger Method (credit goes where credit is due;Philippe Berger is the
> one who did it first, but he uses monochrome inks) in the strength of the
> tricolors nor the order nor the times of each exposure, but with a duocolor
> gum it works perfectly and no problem with registration because there is no
> soaking and shrinking until the end and no problem with highlight staining
> because the original size in those papers is sufficient. It is worth a try;
> test it and report back. I have found my most luck with monochrome gums
> with this method to date.
Would you explain why this is better than one coat if you're using the
same negative? I've never tried it, but I gather that you are in effect
doing the "second" coat blind -- that is, without having seen the first
coat.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 07/09/03-08:31:13 AM Z CST