Re: (Gum) Multi prints???

Tom,

thats sounds like a very reasonable explanation, (the Ps. part). The way I
read some others replies, it sounded like some esoteric factor was involved
and given my background I just couldn't accept those kind of explanations.

I suppose then that doing just like is done in carbon printing ie using an
intermediate "tissue" to "correct" (1 ) the problem of in depth
insolubilisation in high pigment density and relatively high thickness
coating, even if it's made of gum instead of gelatine, this would probably
not qualify as a single coat gum print???

I understand multiple coat can bring a lot more then just darker tones, they
bring a third dimension with all the possibilities it implies. This is kind
of the artistic reasons I would invoke to justify multiple exposure but you
guessed right I was interested in the technical reasons.

Thanks,
Yves

(1) I use the word "correct" but I'm sure there could be a better choice of
word.

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. E. Andersen" <postlister@microscopica.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: (Gum) Multi prints???

> Hello Yves,
>
> If you find a way of making a gum print with good tonality, using only
> one coating, I'm all ears!
>
> Best regards,
> Tom Einar
>
> Ps. The limitation is not the negative, but how much pigment can be
> coated in one layer without the whole thing flaking off in development.
> Remember that the exposure if from the top of the emulsion, and if it is
> thick enough to carry the full density of the finished print, it is more
> than likely to wash away in the highlights during development. I guess
> using a coarse raster screen could do away with this problem, but only
> at the cost of image detail and tonality.
>
>
> Yves Gauvreau wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lets begin by saying I'm assuming monochrome (single pigment) gum
prints.
> >
> > Pratically all the text I've been reading suggest about 3 exposures to
get a
> > "decent" monochrome gum print. One thing none of these text mention, is
what
> > kind of negative they usually start with??? (though some said they
prefer a
> > negative with a low density range)
> >
> > I can't understand why, using a negative especially prepared for gum
prints,
> > one would require multiple exposure to get the wanted result???
> >
> > I simply don't get it, though I'm sure it works fine and that many fine
> > prints have been done that way in the past. But today with computer we
can
> > control the value of each pixels almost at will. I don't see how
multiple
> > exposure can even come close to that level of control, there is just no
way.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Yves
> >
> >
Received on Tue Dec 13 13:13:59 2005