From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 03/12/03-02:56:09 PM Z
Pete,
Could be. Could be!
I've had a glimmer of a thought about this but never really paid a lot of
attention but now that you also bring it up, it is starting to sound better.
I used to spend Saturday's at the UCLA Research Library reading and
skimming through bound sets of 19th Century photography journals and
magazines.
Somewhere back in my old brain cells is a memory trace of a reference to
using plain water color pigment and dichromate to make gum prints and I
believe it was by reference to Zimmermann. Water color pigments in tubes
used to use -- and some still do -- gum Arabic as a binder. Enough in
there to make gum prints. Now that I am hearing about Zimmermann successes
I believe my failure in early 70's was that I did not take him at his word
and use too much gum. This even though I had reduced the amount of gum I
had been using by 80% or more and proceeded to use the blotters. It was hot
summer in Elay and as I recall it was bit peasy in 'ere and my blotters
grew mold
I do recall seeing comments about how amazing his prints were.
I should have posted this rhyming Cockney but then I'd have lost you.<grin>
--Dick
At 07:14 PM 3/12/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Dick.
>
>
>Yes I think there could be a relationship between : Zimmerman and Fresson.
>the gelatine size in the paper coming into the imaging equation, worth
>considering ?
>
>
>
>
> The key to it appears to be that you use lots and lots of sensitizer, lots
>of pigment,
> > and very little gum, sometimes just drops and get full tonal range prints.
> >
> > After 20 years of nagging suspicion on my part that there was something to
> > be had with the Zimmermann process,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>the rolling stones have come home to
> > roost.
>yes but when they start to lay the eggs you have to worry ;--<<
>
>
>
>Pete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:25 PM Z CST