From: Dave Rose (cactuscowboy@attbi.com)
Date: 03/12/03-10:13:43 PM Z
Dear Judy:
It's real easy to "prove" or "disprove" anything based on one little test,
e.g. your article entitled "One Little Test" in The World Journal of
Post-Factory Photography, page 46 in issue #2. Unfortunately, your one
little test was extremely limited in scope and hardly conclusive when
considering the vast number of pigments available for gum printing and how
they differ so drastically.
There are no hard and fast rules in gum printing. I've done plenty of
testing using dozens of different pigments. I've recorded results that
directly contradict both the conclusions you've made from your "one little
test" and Anderson's gum pigment ratio test. IMO, neither you nor prior
authors have got it right....100% of the time. You're clearly on a mission
to discredit Anderson, Crawford, Scopick, and other authors who've written
on the subject of gum printing. Why? To set yourself up as the new
"expert" on gum printing? Sorry, I don't buy it. When I read your magazine
in the late '90's, there was nothing new other than your witty/sarcastic
writing style. Same old stuff in a different package. I've got a lot more
respect for Scopick. At least he isn't trying to slam fellow gum printers
like you are.
>From the last paragraph of your posting, it's clear that you've read about
Zimmerman. But you haven't actually experimented with the process have you?
So what's your point? One the one hand you dismiss Zimmerman, but on the
other you're pushing a flimsy argument, trying to discredit the GPR. Please
clarify.
Best regards,
Dave Rose
Big Wonderful Wyoming
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Zimmerman process
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, pete wrote:
>
> > Somewhere back in my old brain cells is a memory trace
>
> > > 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
>
> I have got a distinct memory trace of the hoo ha about the
> Anderson/Scopick "gum-pigment ratio test", or rather my pointing out that
> it was nonsense. Its premise, that you need a certain (large) amount of
> gum arabic added to your (tube) paint to prevent staining, seems now to
> have gone down the memory hole. But at the time, Pete, you said you'd
> "thought about it" and decided it was right. On top of which, saints
> preserve us, you forwarded my heresy to Scopick himself & then his reply
> to the list... (Not a pretty sight.)
>
> From what I've read, in his day Zimmerman got a mixed reception, and the
> fact that a process was not generally adopted is often a major indicator.
> But on top of science, chemistry, reason, first-hand testimony, and the
> rest of "the literature," it surely puts paid to the great GPR test...
>
> J.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:25 PM Z CST