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

Chris,

>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.

Thanks for the clarification. But were all of the "gum wars" of the
1850s to 1870 based on the use of gum as the "only" colloid? Most of
the material from that period I have read suggests that people were
using a variety of mixtures in an effort to make the magic potion.

>
>
>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.

That will be a very useful contribution to the literature.

>
>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.

Of course you will. And I am very interested to see what you discover.

>
>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 can not answer this question. However, from a strictly mechanical
perspective using Dmax and tonal scale as the major criteria,
transfer carbon is much superior to direct carbon processes such as
Artigue and Fresson.

>
>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

Sandy

>
>
>>>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 20:08:13 2006