Re: Rollers for gum (was: Re: coating method)

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 09/04/03-09:27:38 PM Z


Katherine:

Did you add any grain alcohol (Everclear) to the mix? And what gum ARE
you using? That's an interesting theory about different gums behaving
very differently, because I believe that I am using the same gum as
Stuart, i.e. B&S pre-mixed 14 baume stuff, which may explain why the
method works well for me.

And while we're on the subject of gum, I've got an itch to try some
single coat gums on some old silver-gelatin negatives, and wondered if
anyone had a good watercolor pigment recommendation that will give a
reasonable amount of density without a lot of staining. Is gouache the
way to go here? Any kinds to avoid?

Clay
On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 02:01 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> Sometime this summer I tried one of those white rollers for gum, just
> out of curiosity, and found the results inferior to plain old hake
> brushes. I made several test prints, first with my usual mix, then
> with
> a mix using dry dichromate, gently rolled on with the white foam
> roller
> following the description that was given after APIS. For one of these
> dry-dichromate prints I used no water at all; for the others I used
> varying small amounts of water. In every case, the roller-coated print
> came out blotchy and mottled, quite unsatisfactory, while the print
> made
> by my usual method came out clear and smooth as usual. I scanned two of
> the prints and then decided not to post them, but if anyone's
> interested
> in seeing the comparison, let me know and I'll put them up on Bostick &
> Sullivan.
>
> I've often said that there are about as many different gum printing
> methods as there are gum printers; this is yet another example of that
> truth. What works for one doesn't always, or often, work for others
> using different materials or equipment; that's why attempts to set out
> magic recipes for gum printing are forever doomed to failure.
>
> Someone (Judy maybe?) suggested, back when we were discussing all this,
> that it may be that Stuart's method wouldn't generalize beyond the
> particular gum that he uses. My experiment suggests that this may well
> be so.
>
> It may be, of course, that in order for the method to work, the Miracle
> Muck is essential. I personally don't see any need to add extra
> ingredients when the basic formula works so well. But, like I always
> say, each to his own.
>
> Katharine Thayer
>


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:08:59 PM Z CST