RE: Gum speckles, sizing...glut versus gly website

Katherine,

>
Darryl, I think the examples may be too small to really tell what you're
seeing.
>

I agree they seemed a bit small to make a visual comparison.

>
And I'm unsure about the cyanotype example-- which is the glut
and which the glyoxal.
>

I was confused about this also, perhaps the appropriate labels under the
comparison prints would help.

>
at any rate
I'm not sure what this has to do with speckling in gum printing.
>

Though not directly related to gum I think what Chris was pointing out was
the differences of the two hardeners and their effect on gelatin sizing.

>
 I thought this site was supposed to be about speckling in gum
printing-- to provide a taxonomy of speckling so that we could come to
some agreement on what we mean by speckles and by stains and so forth.
But as constituted at present, it looks more like images intended to
support Chris's position on glyoxal vs glutaraldehyde, which means I
would have to provide different images than I was thinking of in order
to participate in that debate visually, and that's not what I signed on
for.
>

Why don't you submit what you think is appropriate and not get hung up on
all of the minutiae? I would really like to see a visual image that
represents pigment staining with any paper, hardener, etc. I think that
would help clarify what you mean by staining to other folks trying to
understand the craft of gum printing. As Joe pointed out a picture can be
worth a 1000 words. Wouldn't you agree?

>
I've already said everything I have to say about the questionable
nature of comparing stain on one paper to stain on another paper and
drawing any conclusion about glyoxal vs glutaraldehyde from that
comparison, and I stand by that; I'm not sure it's worth spending any
more time on.
>

Forget the glut vs. glyoxal and just show us examples of what you've been
writing about.

>
Yes, I will concede that technically you could say that some parts of
the stain on BFK look like speckles, but to me it doesn't make sense to
call something stain on one paper and speckles on another paper, simply
because stain takes on different appearances on different papers. To me
that's just confusing.
>

If you think that's confusing, think about how many of us with less gum
printing experience feel about these endless discussions about staining.
Since the discussion has been going on for years I wouldn't mind seeing
visual examples. If you want to call speckling staining that's fine but I
think it is a variant of what has heretofore been described as staining on
this list.

>
My insistence on calling this "stain" and the
speckling in Chris's example "speckles" has to do with the etiology of
the problem. Even if part of it looks like speckles, the unwelcome
appearance of the BFK example is caused by stain, and its appearance is
a function of the paper, as I've said already.
>

Paper may very well be the root of the problem which why I will try glut on
BFK. If it doesn't speckle then perhaps we will have eliminated a variable.

>
To me, stain is stain, no
matter how it looks on different papers. And speckles have a different
etiology, hence a different name. But that's just me. I'm not asking
anyone else to be persuaded to my taxonomy, but I do despair, as I said
before, that we'll ever be able to come to any agreement on terms.
>

Why can't we come to an agreement on terms?

Don Bryant
Received on Mon Sep 12 21:18:07 2005