Re: Gum problem(s)

P.S. and it doesn't take up any room, which is a bonus for someone
working in small spaces.
kt

On Nov 18, 2005, at 12:42 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> Well, all I know is that all I've ever used for gum printing is a
> photoflood; it works great and gives a good sharp print, and while
> there's some heat at the base of the bulb where it's screwed in (I
> always make sure I've got a good heavy duty porcelain fixture to screw
> it into) there is simply no heat 13 inches away where the print is.
> Even after the longest exposure I've ever made, the glass and the
> print itself is always still at room temperature.
>
> I started with a photoflood because it was simple and cheap, and I
> wanted to know for sure I wanted to do gum before I invested any money
> into it. But the photoflood, and the rest of my makeshift setup,
> worked so great for me that I've never felt the need to do anything
> else.
> kt
>
> On Nov 18, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Kate M wrote:
>
>> But isn't photoflood a tungsten light source? There would be very
>> little uv
>> output then, a lot of heat though.....when ever I've done copywork
>> under
>> photofloods, I've used tungsten film.
>> Kate
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 19 November 2005 4:31 a.m.
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>> Subject: Re: Gum problem(s)
>>
>>
>>
>> Yves,
>> Thanks for description.
>>
>> Okay,, this sounds like (1) pigment stain (not clearing in masked
>> areas) and ... (2) ... hmmm, I'd need to see the print, I think. Your
>> description of not much pigment in exposed areas sounds like
>> underexposure, but 20 minutes under a photoflood is a very long
>> exposure. My exposures are from 1 to 5 minutes with the same kind of
>> light; most exposures are 2 or 3 minutes. But if you live in a very
>> dry
>> climate, you may need a longer exposure, as there is almost a vertical
>> inverse relation between humidity and time required for hardening.
>>
>> Katharine
>>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Yves Gauvreau wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I tried a few variants in the pigment / gum ratio and coated to
>>> different
>>> tickness directly on paper using various exposition times. None of
>>> the
>>> combination I've tried cleared to the paper in masked areas. Also I
>>> tried
>>> this with one dark brown watercolor paint tube and one using a dry
>>> pigment
>>> (dark brown also). I use a 1:1 ratio of pigment/gum and saturated
>>> pot.
>>> dichromate solution.
>>>
>>> I also notice the unmask area don't hold much if any pigment either.
>>> It's
>>> like some pigments get into the paper causing a noticable darkening
>>> and
>>> almost none stays on top of the paper in insoluble gum. My last
>>> attempt was
>>> 20 minutes exposure under a #2 photoflood light.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion on what is the problem(s) and what I should try next?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Yves
>>>
>>> PS Both pigments I used seem to be of the opaque type if this could
>>> help.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/171 - Release Date:
>> 15/11/2005
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/171 - Release Date:
>> 15/11/2005
>>
>>
>
Received on Fri Nov 18 15:36:16 2005