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

Sandy,
In my historical research I am talking about the "gum wars" from the late
1850's to let say 1870--before even the BJP became the BJP. At that time
the journal was called something like the Photographic Journal. This
beginning predated the carbon transfer process. At the time gum was called
pigment printing, carbon printing, direct carbon printing etc. etc. as it
really didn't have a name quite yet. But I am talking about using gum, not
gelatin, as the colloid.

When the carbon transfer process came along in the 60's (using gelatin) it
became the "rage" and the direct gum fell by the wayside with the general
belief that it was incabable of producing halftones. But that myth was
repeatedly argued against in the BJP just as Pouncy and his son had to
remind the BJP and the Photographic Society that he did, in fact, win part
of the Duc de Luynnes (sp) prize for the Pouncy process. Poitevin became
the historic "father" of gum. Poor little Pouncy and poor little gum.

Soon I will sit down and write an historic timeline from the BJP sorting
this out, for inclusion into my Gum Printing Then and Now book (tentative
title). I have all of these pages (a foot high stack) xeroxed from
microfilm.

 It was difficult to sort out the carbon and gum process from one another
since both shared "carbon" in their name for a while until the 1880's/90's
when gum printing took off due to Rouille Ladeveze, Maskell, and Demachy.
Demachy tried to name it Photo Aquatint and that was hotly protested because
aquatint was a name given to a printmaking process already. Obviously the
printmakers won out because aquatint today is still aquatint.

However, as much as I want to believe that it is possible to rival carbon
with a one coat gum, I at this point might have to agree with your intuition
that it won't be able to be done. If, in fact, I can do so with a front
exposed gum I will shock myself. But I am so intrigued by all of this talk
that I just have to try it.

Do you think that the reason it may not be possible is the lack of inclusion
of gelatin?? Don't all the other processes, artigue, fresson, etc. contain
a modicum of gelatin in the mix? Again, intriguing questions...

I'll order some carbon powdered pigment; I already have carbon black
watercolor (true carbon) and if you have some throwaway print you don't much
care about, you can send it and a scan of its original file at 360 dpi and
all sharpened etc. at the size output your print is, on a cd. I will only
apply a curve and a neg color. When I am done I can send the kit and
caboodle back to you. If you don't have my address, I can email it offlist.

FUN! This beats job interviews ANY day!
Chris

>>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.
>>
> 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 20:06:35 2006