Re: RE:Gum printing ?

Why not try printing tri-color gum/cyanotype? I've had great results with
this method. IMO, the cyanotype is the "better blue".

Best regards,
Dave Rose
Cactus Cowboy
Big Wonderful Wyoming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert" <rc3@flash.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:10 PM
Subject: RE:Gum printing ?

>
>
> After viewing Sam's Tri-color gum over cyanotype prints last summer and
> reading the recent article on the unblinking eye. I have started to try to
> learn the process and am making progress. First a special thanks to
> Katharine for her informative web page which has given me a wealth of
> information. Sam for his work and article and Christine for description
and
> prints currently on the unblinking Eye. I better give Ed some praise for
his
> website and contribution to this community of alternate process.
>
> I am making digital 8x10 negatives which print in platinum/palladium
between
> 2minutes to three. Three coats of gum 1 1/2 minutes to 2minutes, six coats
> gun 1 minute each coat. I am mixing 5cm gum to 5cm potassium dichromate
with
> 1 gram of water color pigment. I am using Daniel Smith: Antraquinoid Red,
> Cadmium medium yellow and Windsor & Newton French Ultramarine. The red and
> Yellow seem to work well and l looking for a better blue.
>
> One of the things which I am unsure about is the order of the layers to
make
> a color print. When I use blue for the first coat I am able to register my
> negative with out trouble. When I use yellow for the first layer it is
much
> harder to see the negative come into registration, but I achieved the best
> color by using Y, M then B negatives.
>
> I am unsure how to fine tune the color balance. More time for one color or
> more pigment? Since I am using Red, Yellow and Blue to make a color print
> would this be the same as traditional silver additive color printing.
>
> I will scan several prints and post them to phto.net so that you may have
a
> better idea how to give me direction. The nude negatives where on (cheap
> transparency film which ran during exposure)
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2269073
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2269086
> Best Regards,
> Robert Cockrell
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 7 21:52:56 2004