Re: Could someone summarize that gum up or down discussion?

Chris,

I am not saying you can not print continuous tone prints in gum, single
exposue. As a matter of fact I have been doing this for a few years.

http://www.alternativephotography.com/artists/marek_matusz/mm_yosemite_meadow.html

Here is one of my earlier works. But, when I really want my gum print to
sing, just like a great painting, I use multiple layers to deepen the
shadows, add highlight definition, etc. I will continue to use multilayer
printing, bacuse of all advantages it offers, adjusting warm and cool colors
in monochrome, etc. You of all the people know the drill.
However put one of your monochrome gums next to a carbon print and tell me
that something is not missing from the gum. The most delicate tonal
transitions, the infinite gradation of tone are not there in the gum.
I want to have that tool in my gum tool box, would't you?

Your historica references are well taken and worth some further discussion
on this list. I am sure we are only rediscovering work that has been lost,
repeating experiments that have bee done. But we understand gum much better
(and plase I do not want anybody to jump on the word "understand"),
especially the negative requirements.
It is all very exciting.
Marek, Hoston

>From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Could someone summarize that gum up or down discussion?
>Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:50:25 -0600
>
>Good morning!
>
>In reference to Marek's back exposed print on plastic, what conclusions are
>you all drawing from this, could someone please summarize?
>
>Since it was initially a test to prove the notion of top down hardening,
>if, in fact, the dichromate in a brushed on coat "sunk" to the bottom of
>the brushed on coat and therefore lurked near the surface of the paper,
>wouldn't exposing from the back therefore still support both
>theories--either top down hardening or hardening where the dichromate
>lurks? Just wondering...
>
>Tell me that NO ONE is saying that you cannot achieve this tonality with
>gum from front exposure, please please please. I fear we are revisiting
>the arguments around Pouncy 150 years ago that have been severely disproven
>since.
>
>Tell me, instead, that you all are just finding a way to successfully print
>contone on plastic? If so, kudos to Sandy, Marek, and Katharine for
>pursuing this idea. The bummer may end up being that you can only do this
>one coat because the next coat you will be exposing through the previously
>hardened layer which in turn will hold back light in the shadows...or so it
>is said, as I have not done this so forgive me in advance if I am passing
>on a myth.
>
>One last thing, since gum is a short scale process, making a digital
>negative curved to that short scale will therefore print a fully tonal
>image, so personally I feel that a lot of the problems with gum printing in
>the 1800's were due to not having the right negs for the process. If they
>had overexposed and underdeveloped their negatives back then to contract
>the zones they would have avoided a lot of this "gum doesn't do halftone"
>stuff...
>
>But how exciting that the community of the list is working together from
>all parts of the globe to hash out this stuff!!
>Chris
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 15 20:04:06 2006