Re: Best Gum Prints I have seen : Criteria

Sandy

 I am sure that we are 'singing from the same hymn sheet'.

As to Emerson, his approach to gum printing stemmed from his misunderstanding
of how we perceive contrast and focus. I would suggest that Evans might be a
better example. Although he achieved images with wide range of tone and fine
gradation, he was also capable of producing prints with stunning gradation
within a narrow range of tones. Try holding a print of the attics at Kelmscott in
your hands to see what I mean.

I suspect that the fashion for d max in platinum prints, producing a somewhat
soot and whitewash affect that some of us remember from silver gelatine
printing, stems from using contrast controls in printing from inappropriate
negatives..That's the way the faulty becomes the fashionable.

Good platinum prints result from good negatives made on film with fine
gradation and a good contrast range which has been exposed and developed for the
purpose.

Terry.

In a message dated 8/4/06 4:09:43 pm, sanking@clemson.edu writes:

>
> Terry,
>
>
>
>
> When I write, "mastery of the technical potential of the medium," I refer to
> technical control of the medium of gum printing. I obviously would not
> compare the technical potential of a gum print to an RC color print. However,
> there is a level of control and execution that we can expect for a specific
> medium, and I rather believe I know what that is for gum from a purely technical
> perspective. Obviously, subjective considerations can also influence our
> judgement, and that in turn can be influenced by prevailing opinions about style.
>
>
>
>
> Today, for example, most people consider that the ability to get good Dmax
> in Pt./Pd. is a sign of mastery of the medium, but in another age Emerson
> valued the opposite. My own view on this is that all processes have a few
> specific distinguishing qualities and those who are proficient in working them how
> to exploit those qualities in a way that is consistent with their artistic
> vision.
>
>
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sandy
>
> I respect both Chris's achievements in making gum prints and your
> qualifications to comment on the process. .That was not the point.  As you implied it
> is possible to make good prints with less than  perfect technique.But then
> whose technique is perfect ?
>
> The original point was how it was that Chris appeared to be getting a layer
> of dichromate under her coating as she applied it. I suggested first of all
> that could be that there was too much gum in the mixture but then I realised
> that I meant too much dichromate solution. My comment as based upon my
> experience of making thousands of gum prints. It did not in any ay imply critiscism
> of Chris's prints. If one asks questions like that presemably one expects an
> answer.
>
> You sais=d that Chris's gum prints were some of the best yoyu had seen. That
> is an entirely different point. As I said. leaving Chris's prints out of it,
> what did you mean by 'best'.
>
> You said  "The print indicates mastery of the technical potential of the
> medium" but what does that mean ? Do you mean making a gum print to look like a
> C type or controlling rhe medium so that it does not look like a photograph
> at all as was the case with some of the great Pictorialists. Or are they both
> legitimate approaches.where on can combime a bit of one and bit of the other.
> Is process here here getting in the way of the art implied in your second
> comment, "The print shows artistic creativity and imagination" where i would
> support you all along he way.
>
> Terry.
>
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 8 12:10:04 2006