From: DENNIS KLINKER (dennis@klink47.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 03/01/03-01:43:22 AM Z
Hi Judy i also have the 10th edition which has a preface by F.J.Mortimer and
as you mention is not dated but i would concur with your guess it is
probably from the 20s i also have the last dictionary edited by ALM
Sowerbry who was also an ex Amateur Photographer magazine editor from i
believe 1960s..A few years ago one of my students showed me a Photo alt
book
published it Italy with a chapter on the Artigue Process,the only one i have
seen in recent years.Dennis K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: King Gum
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Sandy King wrote:
> > when bromoil was introduced around the turn of the century it quickly
> > became far and away the most popular of the pictorial processes.
> > Almost everyone abandoned gum for bromoil and during the period from
> > 1910-40 bromoil was by far the most popular of the two processes.
> > From my research I would calculate that over 60% of all pictorial
> > work between 1910-40 consists of bromoil, and gum less than 20%. And
> > one certainly can not say that bromoil was more popular because it is
> > easier to work. To the contrary, it requires at least as much skill
> > to work as gum, and perhaps even more one gets into the transfer
> > procedures which gives really exquisite work.
>
> For my personal purposes I'd rather feel I'm doing an obscure process than
> the king/queen, or other dominant mode... but I'm very leery of
> conclusions so far after the fact. Do you base the 60% figure on work in
> archives? On magazine how-to's? On salon records? Or?
>
> Judging by the popular magazines, I'd say the most popular were silver
> gelatin prints -- made either by "working up" large size film with
> varnish, blade, pencil, et al, or ditto with paper negatives. An article
> on bromoil OR gum OR carbon was always presented as something out of the
> ordinary. And I also found that in shows of archives (as in MoMA or NY
> Public Library) bromoil is VERY rare to non-existent. Gum just medium
> rare.
>
> Anyway, I found this comment in the Dictionary of Photography quite
> interesting:
>
> 10th edition (date ungiven, those finks -- probably 1920 ???? Dennis K --
> any idea ?)
>
> Under Artique process [later known as Fresson]:
>
> "In spite of the very great things which were expected of the Artigue
> process when the last edition of this DICTIONARY was issued [I may have it
> but can't find it], this process has not come into very general use, the
> more-plastic gum-bichromate method having proved more widely
> applicable...."
>
> But I've also thought that somewhere about 1930 or so the small format
> became prevalent among "amateurs" -- I gather you can do bromoil by
> projection, but not gum, which may have been another reason for its
> popularity. I also suspect that bromoil may have been slow to revive with
> the 1970s movement back to the forefront because for quite a while it was
> an article of faith that you needed a non-supercoated paper, which was
> nearly extinct. Then it was decided/shown that you didn't, but as I
> recall, it was a while before that was generally understood (or
> 'generally" in the "alt" niche).
>
> As for which is most beautiful, colored clay on a cave wall is exquisite
> if you're gifted -- but I think the simplicity of gum gives a great
> freedom... That is, sure you can spend a month doing 24 coats, but you can
> also just wipe on, dry, expose, soak -- and finished. It's certainly
> easier to learn than bromoil, which again proves nothing (I mean nothing
> is learned to the level of feeling free without long practice)... but it's
> all very subjective, isn't it? Gum just seems very direct to me, and
> bromoil very indirect -- and no solvents needed for cleaning brushes &
> tools.
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:24 PM Z CST