Re: Gums a la Demachy and Puyo and all sorts of other things

Chris,

Well said! As you and others have pointed out, there is more than one way to
scan a cat—and a gum print of a CAT Scan might be interesting... but anyway,
Standardization of some variables does not preclude the ability of altering
other variables—obviously gum has a humongous number of variables that can be
played with—which is part of its appeal.

I would even venture to guess that experienced gum printers may have even
standardized some variables in their workflow that they are not even aware of.
An example of this might be the nature of the tap water where they live, the
RH where they live, etc.

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
To NSA: When you read this email, would you please search your database for
my other black sock?
Precision Digital Negatives--The Book
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com

In a message dated 7/17/06 11:27:54 AM, zphoto@montana.net writes:

> Good morning all,
> I've been very loosely following this thread, and I'm sure I've missed
> bunches.  But I just have to interject here experience and watching 15
> students also experience doing just what is described below as being
> inappropriate:  using curves, standard development times, and I'll add
> standard printing times, and standard emulsion mixes to doing gum prints.
>
> As has been said numerous times, there are many ways to skin a cat with gum.
> There are many looks in gum printing, too.  Most are beautiful. Each
> practitioner finds his/her way of working out the process and his/her "look"
> to the final gum print.  That's the beauty of gum is its infinite variety of
> expression! Look at Ernestine's gum landscapes--bet she doesn't use a curve
> for those.
>
> What I find illogical is the acceptance of the validity of many different
> ways of arriving at an end product EXCEPT the acceptance of a standardized
> method. Why should that one way be unacceptable/inappropriate? It simply is
> not true, in my experience.  Unnecessary?--if your gum prints are gorgeous,
> why would you need to change your practice anyway? If your gum practice
> leaves something to be desired in your prints (which is true of more than a
> few gummists), then this is ONE avenue you may want to explore.
>
> For 3 years now I have been standardizing two things:  my exposure time to 6
> minutes UVBL, and using a different curve for each color (this with the
> Epson 2200, 2400, and 4000 printers).  This, of course, based on all my
> other variables that make up my practice.  For instance, Don Bryant with all
> his variables may find a completely different time and curve down South.
>
> BTW, It is simply not the whole story that exposure determines the curve as
> was recently suggested.  I have developed curves on different exposure times
> for a pigment, and the SHAPE of the curve is the same, only moving up or
> down the HD scale depending on exposure.  The SHAPE of yellows and carbon
> black, for instance, are entirely different than blues and magentas.  I have
> not yet tested this, but it seems that a really red orange pigment may be
> different than a magenta--this stands to reason, I guess, since it would
> lean more toward yellow.  This was fascinating to observe this.
>
> So curves are different, in my experience, based on PIGMENT color (which
> acts as a filter), not just exposure time.  When I found this out it
> explained why my yellow layer was usually the one not right --my original
> one size fits all curve tended to "fit" better with magenta and blue.
>
> I agree there is no "one shot and you're out" like with pt/pd or iron
> processes.  Development varies, because I get to drinking coffee or reading
> list emails and forget.  Gum pigment mixes vary because sometimes I use more
> muted, sometimes more brilliant colors.  In other words, I employ
> flexibility at these stages if I want to or not.  BUT, since employing
> curves and SPT with gum I have not found that the other variables make the
> huge difference they are said to make.  There were times I would have to
> leave gums in the water all day and go to school, and when I came home, if I
> made sure to be careful with the surface of the gum, they were fine.
>
> In my experience and my students' also, there is nothing "inappropriate"
> about this method of gum printing.  I personally found that most problems
> associated with gum were eliminated with standardization, and wonder if
> gum's purported difficulty is actually due to lack of standardization.
>
> But you all are perfect gum printers and so I am preaching to the choir.
>
> Never would I deem "inappropriate" any other method of gum printing that
> other practitioners have chosen if their gum prints come out.  I am not that
> bigoted in my process to assume others who are doing perfectly good gum
> prints are using wrong processes.  And THAT is the proof of our
> technique--our gum prints!
>
> I don't remember hearing any student in my class complain about
> standardization, either, and I had some stellar final projects in tricolor
> gum to boot, that even though were standardized, looked totally different
> and unique from my prints.  So standardization a) makes things ultimately
> easier yet b) does not prevent other "looks" from being possible.
>
> My two cents, but to each his own.
> Chris
> czaphotography.com
>
>
>
Received on 07/17/06-10:48:59 AM Z