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

Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>
> > Katharine said: And I'm unsure about the cyanotype example-- which is the
> > glut
> > and which the glyoxal.
> > at any rate
> > I'm not sure what this has to do with speckling in gum printing.
>
> The glut is on the left, and the gly is on the right. Same paper, different
> size. I shared this because these are cyanotype underlayers for gum prints,
> and the glyoxal prints decidedly lower contrast and paler than the glut. I
> shared it for a point of interest, and have no idea why that was a bad
> thing. Good heavenly days.

Good heavenly days, indeed! I didn't say it was a bad thing. I just said
I didn't see what it has to do with gum, and I still don't.

>
> > Don said: 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.

But this is exactly what I was objecting to: the drawing of inferences
where no inferences are warranted. To assume that we know that a
difference in how cyanotype prints on two different hardeners on the
same paper would predict how gum would print on the two hardeners on the
same paper is simply not a reasonable assumption. This is true for
inferences in general, but even more so for gum in particular; given how
differently it behaves across conditions and printers, it would be very
difficult if not impossible to predict accurately how gum would behave
in an untested situation.

> > Katharine said:
> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure why this would be the case, but, Darryl, go ahead and pull the
> images off the website that don't pertain to speckling, and Katharine, post
> away. We are ALL waiting with bated breath.

??? Since I've already shown both of my examples of speckling, and
you've posted one of them (since it was yours in the first place, thanks
for letting me borrow it) to Darryl's site, the only thing we would be
ALL waiting for from me would be for me to send Darryl the other
example, which everyone has already seen. So I'm a bit perplexed by the
suggestion that everyone is waiting with bated breath for anything from
me.

Having just read a post from Jack Brubaker from last week on the
question, I have to agree with him that it probably makes sense to
expand the purpose of the site to visual examples of a number of
different gum phenomena, not just speckling. But my understanding of the
mandate in the beginning was for people to show examples of what they
call speckling, so participants and spectators could see for themselves
what was being talked about, and that these speckles would be arranged
(by whom I'm not sure) into groups and labeled so that we would have
some kind of a taxonomy of speckles. It was in the context of my
understanding of the mandate, that my comments were made.

As to why it would be the case that I would need different examples to
participate in a visual debate on glyoxal vs glutaraldehyde than I would
need to show what I mean by speckling, it seems to me that would be
self-evident. If I were participating in the glutaraldehyde vs glyoxal
debate, I would show examples of glyoxal not yellowing on Fabriano
Artistico Extra-White, either rinsed or not rinsed, after seven months.
I would show prints on BFK as well as on Fabriano Artistico and Arches
Bright White, sized with glyoxal, that are not stained. But like I say,
this debate isn't what I signed on for, and I don't see any particular
reason to engage in it, especially on that site. If I feel the need to
provide counterexamples to what I see as inappropriate inferences about
glyoxal, I'll do that on my own website.

As to the speckles, I think our minds just work differently when
considering how to organize and label this information. I don't think
there's any right or wrong about it. To me it makes more sense to
organize by etiology....to have a page called "Pigment Stain" and on
that page a lot of examples of different ways stain looks on different
papers, for example, rather than just having one category called
speckles all mixed up as to etiology.

But I have one specific objection to your speckle listings: of course I
don't think that sizing with gelatin that has been boiled is a cause of
speckling, and it's perverse to keep saying I do when I have explained
again and again what my position is on that issue. In my experience hot
size, like hot water, can cause speckling on certain papers. But it's
the temperature of the liquid when applied to the paper that causes the
disruption of the internal size and consequently the speckles, and not
whether it's been boiled or not, in my experience. As I've explained
many times, I proved that to myself once by getting the size too hot and
then cooling it; the papers that had been sized when the liquid was hot
speckled when printed with gum; the papers that were sized after the
liquid was cooled did not speckle. We learn from experience and modify
our knowledge base and recommednations in response to that experience,
just as you once recommended BFK as the ideal gum paper, and no longer
do.
Katharine Thayer
Received on Thu Sep 15 13:18:13 2005