Re: Why multiple exposure (was Re: (Gum) Tonal scale)

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Yves Gauvreau wrote:

Yves, forgive me -- you're doing so well with English I forgot to be
careful... I'm just getting on after two days, so maybe down the queue
someone else has answered, but here goes anyway....

>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Yves Gauvreau wrote:
>>
>>> I made some test of my own and I got about 6 to 8 steps (Stouffer 21
> steps)
>>> dependent (as expected) on the gum pigment mix I used. I didn't measure
> the
>>> densities but I think everyone knows each step correspond to
> approximately
>>
>> CUT....
>>
>>> So I guess my real question then is how come all the fuss about multiple
>>> exposure that many seem to favor for gum prints???

I said -- >> If you are getting 6 to 8 steps in a gum print with one coat
and a
>> tonal range that satisfies you pictorially, I suspect you are wasting your
>> time on this list. You could be out in the world walking on water-- and
>> running workshops.

You said --> I really got 8 STEPS not STOPS and I don't understand what
could be the
> magic about that?

Because 6 or 7 steps is all an experienced gum printer would get in one
coat, but most likely in pale tones (which are much easier to get more
steps with because the darks don't block up). Getting them with enough
depth to be a full picture, without requiring several coats on top of one
another to build up the tone, is, again, a sign of expertise.

And yes, I speak of steps.

I said -->> My other thought as I kept on reading was that when I run the
world no one
>> who hasn't done, oh, say 50 gum tests on their own (perhaps using the "gum
>> entry exercise" I used to give classes -- and could swear I put somewhere
>> in P-F, about which more in a moment) is NOT allowed to discuss "theory"
>> and "principles" here, or anywhere. That's because you get into so many
>> abstruse issues that simply do not apply, but hold over from silver
>> gelatin, that the only recourse is to retreat in dismay.

  you said -- This may be clear to most but not to this chimp...

I mean you're getting tangled in abstract discussions that WON'T help you
learn to print, most of them (in my opinion of course) theoretical, even
if true, and not at all practical or useful. At the same time, because
they are so intricate and confusing, they "teach" you that gum printing is
really difficult, intricate and confusing.

Like I said originally --
>> It is THESE discussions (seems to me) that make gum seem so queer, so
>> whimsical, so devilishly complex. In the actual practice, if you start
>> simple, and do NOT expect "rules" for "best" or "correct" or "right"
>> print, and dismiss all theory in advance, it's quite simple.

  You said--
> This is all true and all right, small steps can get you far but I feel I
> need to know where I'm going before I start walking. In my case this is true
> both figuratively and in reality.

I now add that I don't think those discussion did tell you where you were
going, any more than, say a history of the Duke of Bellingham and his
murder trial as seen in the laws of County Klerk, tell you how to get to
the Garden in County Klerk. Or than the theory of flight explains
travel of the bumble bee. I rarely bet less than a million dollars, but
I'd bet a nickle once you get there (& it sounds like you're getting
close) you will dump those theories...

Not to mention that to tell you where you're going is impossible. Nobody
else knows where you're going to want to go -- otherwise they're doing
your art, not you.

You said --->
> That maybe the problem, I'm always thinking of monochrome gum prints maybe
> not exactly black and white but in varying shades of rich dark browns. I
> would even add only one at a time for now.
>
> I think it's easy to figure out that any small change applied to a single
> coat as a quasi exponetial effect with each successive coat. Complexity
> builds up quite fast that way, maybe before digital negs where used I could
> understand the rational for multi coats but with those diginegs I don't see
> the necessity of multiple coats for true monochrome prints.As soon as one
> want anything more then a monochrome print it's obvious we need more then
> one coat, no question about that.

The reason for using several coats even for an apparently monochrome print
is that gum does not readily give enough density in one coat to make a
satisfying print. Nothing to do with the negative, everything to do with
the medium of gum.

That's what I meant when I talked above about the "pale tones." An
emulsion with enough pigment in it to give what's called an adequate
D-max, or density of tone, will NOT print 6 steps (unless you're clever,
experienced, or walking on water). Why? Because the bottom steps block up
from all that pigment, and/or the emulsion is so thick (to hold all that
pigment) the top (thin) steps flake off.

I devoted an article to this in one of my issues, called "Serious One Coat
Gum Printing." Yes, it can be done, I've done it, others do it.
Strategies include special sizes that hold more pigment (I combined gesso
and gelatin, learned from Bernie Boudreau), also really rough paper, which
holds the highlights better, among other strategies. But for myself, I
find it generally more flexible, sensitive, versatile, beautiful and
satisfying to do several coats -- even in monochrome.

Judy
Received on Wed Nov 30 23:20:00 2005