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

Judy,

thank you very much for your time and detail explanations.

I've added a few comments just to show I understood this time.

Regards
Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:18 AM
Subject: 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.

All this because of your reference to "walking on water" to me and many
others that a miracle and it got me wondering.

I'll add that I used burnt umber which is not the darkest color there is.

>
> 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.
>

You got me here, pants down beside that, do you say this in english?

I forgot I'm not suppose to ask question again.

I would say that these theorical and abstract ideas effectively don't help
me at all but the answer you and others have given me on this subject are
very useful and help me understand in an indirect way maybe but knowledge is
knowledge.

> 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...
>

I know by experience that people don't always realise, in fact rarely, the
amount of knowledge required to do even relatively simple task. They don't
think about it because they just know it. Just as an exemple, it took years
and years of effort to get a dumb robot to walk by itself on a flat floor,
the best ones today can clim stairs up and down but don't change to much
things in there environment otherwise you'll need a lift pretty soon. Most
people would say walking well I don't think about it, I just do it. It's a
perfectly normal and acceptable response to most people.

Just in case you ask, which is not the idea here, that experience I mention
is mostly in teaching technical skills to a bunch of teens that where not
suppose to be able to learn.

> 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.

I scanned this famous 7-8 steps test I made, I even made the response curve
for it out of curiosity and I understand perfectly know what you just said.
This bit of your answer "to make a satisfying print" refering to one coat of
course is the major point I would say. But I learned way much more from this
silly question, I have the map now (I think). I know you can put about any
amount of pigment about anywhere you want on a piece of paper using 1 or
more negatives and a few basic skills like burning and dodging. In practical
term there is no doubt in my mind I can learn to do that. I'm still amazed
and facinated by the huge amount of possibilities this process opens up.

> 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 experience that as well

> 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 Thu Dec 1 08:37:51 2005