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

Peter,

I want to congratulate you for this excellent discussion on the
different qualities of processes. Sometimes in our discussions it
gets lost that all of use have different goals and that some
processes work better than others to those ends.

No process is superior to another per se, but when a person's goals
are very well defined some processes serve better than others to
reach those goals. If the goal is very high Dmax, a long tonal scale,
and a very straight line curve, carbon is a good choice. And if you
add to that relief and the ability to make prints in any color or
shade you like, then carbon is really the one. But carbon is one of
the most complex and time consuming processes to work, especially
when you have to make your own tissue, and those factors limit its
use.

On the other hand, if one values hand controls on the print for their
expressive qualities then processes like gum, direct carbon (Fresson)
and bromoil offer much more to the artist.

The thing that interested me about exposing gum from the rear was the
prospect of being able to make images with high Dmax and a long tonal
scale, with just one printing, but with the greater convenience of
coating as in gum. If that could be done, as some of our
experimentations suggest, it would open the doors to an entirely new
medium. But, and here is the caveat, for me this would only be of
real interest if we can find a way to transfer the hardened gum image
from the plastic to paper. Can that be done? I don't know. Perhaps
Ryuji can offer some thoughts on if/how this might be done.

Sandy

>Christina,
>
>From what you write, I wonder if you have studied the actual prints
>by Pouncy and Demachy. Fine though they are, I can't imagine that
>anyone could confuse them with a silver print or carbon. They have
>their own very different qualities; certainly they were "SO good"
>but also SO different. What indeed would be the point of alternative
>processes if that were not so? The pictorialists certainly didn't
>want to make prints that looked like silver prints, but to clearly
>differentiate their art from the commercial work of the day.
>
>The reason why transfer jumped straight into my mind was in part
>because of the different nature of the substrate and a hope that the
>bond between gum and plastic sheet might be rather less than that
>between gum and paper so as to make this possible. Although it is
>always dangerous to judge from reproduction, Marek's image seemed to
>have a more delicate tonality than I've previously seen in one-coat
>gums.
>
>Carbon printing as a usable process was patented in 1864 and was a
>pretty widespread and popular during the heyday of the gum process
>which came later with Demachy and others. I've always assumed that
>what was seen as important at that time was the difference between
>an essentially commercial and technical process using factory-made
>carbon tissue and the hand-coated and locally worked nature of the
>gum which appealed to those who saw print-making as artistic
>expression. The qualities which these artists were seeking were more
>aesthetic and spiritual rather than technical. (We tend to forget
>that at that time both carbon and platinum were largely produced
>using factory-made materials, and not 'post-factory' processes.)
>
>What actually appeals to me about the best carbon prints is actually
>hard to pin down. I think it has more to do with the nature of the
>image and substrate than more easily measurable aspects such as
>densities. Words like 'pearly translucence' try to describe it. Its
>actually rather similar to the quality of some of the prints I made
>many years ago on the old Record Rapid. I can match (or beat) those
>prints for density, make them on similar surfaces either in the
>darkroom or very recently from the inkjet with papers such as
>DaVinci Fibre Gloss. Good prints, but somehow they lack that
>particular quality.
>
>I think if you read the controversies over the various print
>processes etc in the nineteenth century journals, actually going to
>see the prints they were talking about in the RPS collection and
>elsewhere can sometimes cause a certain surprise. I've felt it also
>in more recent years when some people have handed me their
>successful one coat gums; not that they are not successful, but just
>that they do not match in terms of technical quality what can be
>achieved in other processes - such as silver, carbon, platinum or
>inkjet. Perhaps exposure from the back and transfer can narrow that
>particular gap.
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter
>
>Peter Marshall
>petermarshall@cix.co.uk
>_________________________________________________________________
>My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
>London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
>The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
>and elsewhere......
>
>
>
>Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>AHA. Thank you, thank you Marek, for clarifying the bottom line
>>here!! NOW I understand. So the real test will be to make a
>>monochrome one coat gum that looks as good, side by side, with a
>>carbon print. On paper.
>>
>>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. I could xerox
>>all my xeroxes for you all to show the huge brouhaha that went on
>>at that time about this very issue--can gum, in fact, give the same
>>tonality and dmax as carbon transfer?? It seemed back then the
>>proof was in the pudding but people continued to say it wasn't.
>>Either that is because it, in fact, WASN'T, or they were too proud
>>to back down.
>>
>>So I have to wonder that there is something we are all missing in
>>our modern technique.
>>
>>This interests me greatly.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>I have no clue as to the outcome of this experiment. Carbon
>>perhaps may rule. I have no agenda in proving this one way or
>>another. I do not do single coat gums. The only real experience I
>>have had with carbon is seeing a few at APIS and then your
>>lecture/demo, Sandy, down at Clemson. And then seeing that
>>tricolor carbon print at A Gallery of Fine Photography that blew my
>>sox off and would've made me give up gum if I wouldn't have to
>>spend years slugging through yet another technical process to
>>refine to perfection.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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 $5.
>>Chris
Received on Sat Apr 15 20:12:37 2006