From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 03/17/03-02:12:06 AM Z
Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>
> Judy and list,
> I think I better clarify something about the Zimmerman process before
> everyone figures it is something different than it is, and excuse the
> lengthy quotes, below that you have to plow thru. People are under the
> mistaken opinion that Z used hardly any gum by his statement "use just
> enough gum to hold the pigment together, and no more". Read the following
> and you will see that he actually says to use 1:1 pigment to gum, HOWEVER,
> he used powdered pigments. But he was going volume to volume, you know?
No, I guess I don't know, sorry to have to disagree. Volume to volume
powdered pigment to gum is very different from volume to volume tube
paint to gum. I don't see anything here to indicate he didn't mean
exactly what he said, "use just enough gum to hold the pigment together
and no more." He says to start with a little more gum than POWDERED
pigment, exactly as you say, and if there's still some dry pigment
that's not mixed in, then mix in some more gum, but, as soon as all the
pigment is taken up by the gum and held in suspension, you stop. With
tube paint, the pigment is already held in suspension by the gum that's
in the paint, so it stands to reason that you would use tube paint as it
comes out of the tube in order to follow his method, adding at most a
few drops of gum, as Dick said the other day.
BTW, Zimmerman's statement that one molecule hardened gum holds one
molecule pigment is a curious idea bearing no connection to the reality
of gum chemistry. The molecules don't join in a one to one fashion, a
gum molecule fastening to a pigment molecule. What happens is the gum
molecules link together at the edges to form a net, and the pigment
molecules are held inside the net.
Katharine Thayer
> Anyway, read on and I'll make my point after:.
> Zimmerman, p. 4 jpeg,
> prefers powdered pigments. p.6 he uses gum, not the powdered kind but the
> solid, mixed 2 parts solid gum to 3 parts water--a thick solution. P. 7
> "Use just enough gum to hold the pigment together and no more." p. 7 or p.
> 215 of the original article says "take...pigment or powder...enough to heap
> on the point of a penknife blade. Pour in of the thick gum solution *a
> little more than the bulk of the pigment used*....if the gum takes up all of
> the pigment in suspension then you are ready for the next step; if not, add
> a few drops gum...[and further] a molecule of gum will hold a molecule of
> pigment when the gum is hardened...all the gum that is used in excess of
> molecule for molecule is wasted...[further, p. 216 or p. 8]...I am doing
> something more radical than that, by advising you to use the gum sparingly,
> and the sensitizer..somewhat ad libitum.There is this suggestion only as to
> the latter, that if you use too little, the mixture will be too thick to
> spread, and if too much, it will be too watery. The four to six proportion
> of sensitizer to one of gum is about right for all purposes, and will give
> the desired "creamy" consistency for a smooth coating."
> This "creamy" word is what has me puzzled, because when I did the Z
> method yesterday, it was NOT creamy, it was runny/watery, so I really think
> in essence he is using thicker gum, or more, than people believe.
> The nice thing about his method is mix n' go: take 1/4 tsp pigment,
> 1/4 tsp gum, and 2 tsp pot di, and it'll do a good 8x10. So it is easy
> enough to test on your own--any takers?? Please report back.
> My tests yesterday were this: Z against Livick. Livick was the 6g
> pigment to 12ml gum formula, and I took my most staining color (quinacridone
> violet) and I got FAR cleaner whites with L than with Z, in fact, with a
> heavy stainer as the QV I would NEVER do Z's formula. It was a bust. I
> also tested Z's formula with am di and pot di as another aside, half the
> print of one and half of the other, same exposure same neg same time
> obviously. The am di did WAY better than the pot di (still stained whites
> tho) because, in my opinion, it is a faster exposure so it looks darker,
> richer, contrastier, and didn't allow bleeding as much as the pot di did.
> Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:25 PM Z CST