Yves, you'r still harping on the same wrong note, I see, after all
this time. I stopped reading your posts months ago, because you
seemed determined to misunderstand me. and after a while one realizes
that further clarification and explanation isn't going to make any
difference, and that one might as well save one's energy. But it
seems you've changed your address, so this one came up in the alt-
photo folder.
Having read it I'll say this: if you had been printing gum for the
last six months or year or however long it's been since our last
conversation, you would be a very capable gum printer by now.
I tell people that printing gum is the best way to learn how to print
gum, not because my intention is to discourage people from printing
gum, but because I happen to believe that printing gum is the very
best and fastest way to learn to print gum. But I've never advocated
just playing around and having fun; I recommmend a very systematic
approach, changing one variable at a time, noting what happens,
changing another variable, noting what happens. By doing this, you
come to understand gum in an intuitive way, and then from then on you
can print any emulsion capably without ever having to worry about the
details again. Like I said, there are many roads to the kingdom,
and I have no particular argument with those who choose a different
path than mine. But you're never going to get there if you spend your
time sitting beside one of the roads throwing rocks at the
travelers going by. Pick a road and get going, for heaven's sakes.
Thank you,
Katharine
On Jul 15, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Yves Gauvreau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I always thought that gum printing could be considered as most other
> processes and the path usually taken for say iron based process
> could be
> taken for gum printing as well. The main difference being with gum
> is that
> practically every mixture you come up with is "printable" it as its
> own set
> of properties and its own set of requirements for printing. This
> makes this
> route kind of limitless in its possibilities, understandably I
> realise "the
> just do it" advise I've been given many times becomes more and more
> acceptable when face with a possibly endless testing process.
>
> I have been laught at before for saying this and now I see
> Katharine and
> others saying something similar. I admire those who can go at gum
> by just
> doing it, though I'm still unconfortable with this idea of flying
> by the
> seat of the pants, I find the idea more and more appealing but
> still scary.
> As she also said, there are "many roads to the kingdom" and I'm
> sure I'll
> find one I'm confortable with one of these days.
>
> Those who have been doing various type of gum prints for years, may
> forget
> some if not many of the bends they went through along there
> learning path.
> Most process require some precise technique, a precicely weigthed
> mix of
> chemical, a precise exposure time and development process and this
> without
> speaking of curves. The "problem" or fun with gum is that every
> emultion or
> combination of emultions you come up with, is printable and would
> require
> some testing to find out those precise variables needed with other
> processes
> but I understand this would make gum printing a lot less fun and
> deter many
> from it, some would even say that it would be somekind of muffler to
> creativity. So "je tire mon chapeau" to those who make gum prints
> using
> techniques that seem to be a cross between photography and
> painting. In the
> end, the path taken to realise a piece is irrelevant, it's the
> results that
> counts.
>
> The only suggestion I would make to those experience gum printers
> is this,
> please don't say to newbies or want to be gum printers, just get
> some gum,
> some pigments and a piece of paper and go have fun. Unless of
> course, you
> want to limit the number of gum printer around the world which
> would make
> your own work much more valuable. With gum printing, though it is time
> consuming the photographic part is relatively easy but the
> "painting" part
> well that takes years to master which ever way you look at it.
>
> Just keep on doing this amasing work.
> Yves
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> I personally think that would be a hard argument to make, but the
>> thing about gum is that there's lots of different ways to get to the
>> same result. David was saying yesterday that his RH has gone up (I
>> hope his power isn't still off) but he was dealing with it by holding
>> the exposure constant and just developing longer. I deal with an
>> increase in RH by shortening exposure. Either works. The point
>> being that there are many roads to the kingdom, and maybe ultimately
>> there's no difference in result between holding the exposure
>> constant and making a different curve for every possible pigment and
>> pigment concentration, and holding the curve constant and exposing
>> differently for each emulsion. I don't know that I'd ever be willing
>> to take the time to test that, but maybe someone will, sometime. In
>> the meantime, it's a heck of a lot easier to take the second route; I
>> haven't yet seen a lot of difference in the prints between the two
>> methods, and so ... each to his own.
>> Katharine
>>
>
>
Received on 07/15/06-11:47:51 AM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 08/31/06-12:23:48 PM Z CST