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

Chris,

>
>I find this a bit puzzling because, again, back in the lit, there
>were huge discussions where people were ignoring the fact that
>Pouncy's and Demachy's and others' gums were SO good that viewers
>could not tell whether they were a silver gelatin/carbon or a gum.
>So I have to assume from these discussions that it is possible to
>achieve that "carbon tonality" with the gum process.
>So I have to wonder that there is something we are all missing in
>our modern technique.

But remember, the prevailing aesthetic of that time favored prints
with compressed tonal values. Prints of high Dmax were not in vogue.
I think this is what you are missing.

>Can I suggest a test, not being a carbon printer? For instance,
>Sandy, you "wrote the book" on carbon. Would you be willing to send
>a carbon print you have made, and a digital file of the negative to
>me and/or whomever (digital file uncurved), and with Mark Nelson's
>Precision Digital Negative system I could devise a curve that would
>compress the tonal range of your image into the tonal range of gum
>and print a gum print and see if it rivals the carbon? That would
>seem to be as close to comparing apples to apples as we can get.

Sure, I will be happy to do that. But the issue is not just the tonal
range, at least for me. It is about both the tonal range, and getting
very good shadow density with just one coating and printing. If you
can do that with a digital negative then you will really be on to
something for gum. But just let me know where you want me to send the
print and file and I will shoot it off to you in the next day or so.

>
>I do know, historically, that carbon supplanted the poor little
>lowly gum process, so there has to be benefits of the carbon process
>that gum or their gum technique at the time did not provide.

Actually, I don't believe that is historically accurate. Carbon
transfer was a commerical process from as early as the 1860s. Gum
printing of the traditional type done today did not appear until
after the introduction of direct carbon papers by Artigue and Fresson
in the 1880s.

>
>I WANT to believe that with technology today, the ability to produce
>perfect digital negatives for any process will allow us to come the
>closest to closing that gap between carbon and gum if, in fact,
>there is a superiority to the process of carbon and it is not a
>glitch in gum technique.

My intuition is that it will not be possible to produce a curve for a
digital negative that will print a gum image, with one coating, that
has the same tonal range and shadow density as a carbon print. But if
anyone can do it I am sure you can so I am certainly willing to
participate in the experience.

Sandy
Received on Sat Apr 15 20:04:47 2006