Re: One coat gum - first one for me - how is it for you?

Hi All,
Surrounded by the chaos of a particularly chaotic move, I am
delighted at the prospect of escaping into a discussion of gum.
Thanks, David!

I'm not familiar with this Vienna Red paint (brand?) but I'm assuming
it's either a red oxide, PR 101, or possibly a mixture containing
burnt umber or sienna. If it's either of these, and from the color I
don't know what else it would be, it's a fairly weak pigment as
pigments go, and won't give a very deep DMax no matter how much
pigment is used. A glob of paint the size of a large pea in 5 ml gum
is a high paint/gum proportion indeed, so to imply that the lack of
DMax might be a function of pigment load doesn't seem to me a useful
or accurate suggestion. More of this pigment isn't likely to make it
any darker, but only to create pigment stain problems. I think David
has handled the pigment and the coating very well and capitalized on
the characteristics of this particular pigment in a way that is
worthy of Demachy indeed, and in fact reminiscent of some of his work.

As to contrast, contrast is a personal preference. I have no
patience with the idea that all photographic prints should have
fairly high contrast. To me it depends on the image and the intent
of the artist, what the right contrast is for a print. But this silly
rule is what makes group shows of black and white photos so
predictable and boring: all the prints look alike tonally. And
against that lock-step tonal conformity, how refreshing it is to see
something different-- say Bill Jacobsen's dark portraits or Joyce
Tennyson's high-key prints .

It reminds me of a couple of comments I've had about my website over
the years. My website is an educational site about gum printing,
not particularly intended to show off my work (that's what galleries
are for) and in my beta site, I included explanations with each image
explaining what I had intended to communicate in the print and how I
used the materials and the method to achieve that goal. It seemed a
reasonable thing to do on an educational site, and still does. But I
let myself get intimidated by a comment from a student who seemed to
think that the rules for an educational site should be the same as
the rules for a student critique, in other words the print must stand
for itself with no explanation, and who saw the accompanying
explanations, specifically the statement on some images that my goal
for the image was to print with as little contrast and DMax as
possible, as "apologizing" or making excuses for my work. No, I
never apologize for my work; my work is always exactly what I intend
it to be, and no excuses necessary. I'm sorry to say, however, that
in response to that criticism I did take the explanations off the
image pages in the gallery. I've always regretted that, and one of
the goals for the revisiion of my site, which I started this winter
but has got lost in this move, is to put the explanations back where
they belong, so that people who use my site can see exactly how the
materials and method are used to achieve a particular aesthetic goal.

  Another "helpful" comment was from someone who wrote to say that
there must be something wrong with my site, or my scanning protocol,
or something, because some of the images look "right" to him and
some are too pale and low-contrast. I wrote back that no, there's
nothing wrong with the site; the scans reproduce the originals fairly
well. The pale low-contrast images were prints I made during the
period (2001-2004) when I was deliberately printing with a very small
amount of pigment to make very pale very high-key very low-contrast
prints. The prints I made before that period, and the prints I've
made since that period, have more DMax and more contrast. It's
interesting that the only people who can't seem to "get" the idea
that I have different visions for different bodies of work, and so
print very differently from one body of work to the next, or one
period of time to the next, are photographers. The people who buy my
work, the galleries, haven't had any problem following me from one
aesthetic vision to the next.

As to the contrast in David's print specifically: I've already
touched on the DMax (the idea that you can't get a deep DMax in one
coat is silly, as I and Chris and Judy others have demonstrated, but
whether you can or can't has a lot to do with the choice of
pigment). As to the lack of paper white, I am willing to take
David's word that there's nothing in the image that's intended to be
paper white, that the negative has no areas that aren't designed to
allow some slight hardening of gum, and in fact I think a white note
in that image would disturb the mood and would be jarring. The image
is peaceful and contemplative, a nice pictorialist mood that is
enhanced by the choice of contrast. Loris obviously doesn't like a
pictorialist aesthetic but I don't think it's very useful to impose
our aesthetic preferences onto others' work; there's room here for
all aesthtic intents and purposes.

I like the print, as it is.

My 2cents,
Katharine

On Jun 7, 2006, at 7:26 AM, John Brewer wrote:

> I like your print a lot David. I too find FAEW not as white as some
> watercolour paper but it is my favourite paper at the moment.
>
> John
>
> www.johnbrewerphotography.com
>
> Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage. Anaïs Nin.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <davidhatton@totalise.co.uk>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:16 PM
> Subject: RE: One coat gum - first one for me - how is it for you?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> That's a very nice print
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks very much.
>>
>>
>>
>>> FAEW is very white, perhaps you go the off white.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On the packing slip it says 'extra white'. When I compared it with
>> some Arches
>> (rough) that I had, it just wasn't as white...:(
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why not add the Formaldehyde to the gelatin and just size in one
>>> step? It
>>> works very well.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Basically I'm scared of hot formaldehyde, plus, I can put any
>> surplus jelly in
>> the fridge 'til next day if I need to.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Definitely clear the print.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I will.
>>
>>
>>
>>> What is your pigment/gum/dichromate ratio?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 5 ml. gum:6ml. Sat. Potted Dich.: large pea sized squirt of
>> pigment (not very
>> scientific I know :( )
>>
>> I had a big problem with getting an even coat that was rich in
>> pigment but not
>> too thick. I devised a method (of sorts ) and it works well for
>> me. Mix the stuff
>> as normal, then slap it on the paper with any old brush and spread
>> it around.
>> Then the magic bit. I slightly damp a sponge roller and take the
>> excess off agin
>> by rolling and applying a firm pressure on the roller. The excess
>> soaks into the
>> sponge and the roller evens out the brush strokes. I then leave it
>> for say, a
>> minute, then buff to a shine with a couple of hake brushes. It
>> really works well
>> for me. Of course you more experienced gum printers can get a thin
>> coat with only
>> a brush I know,but for beginners or people with stellar ineptitude
>> scores like
>> me, it gets a result.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David H.
>>
>>
>> ---- - Madasafish - Voted Best Heavy Consumer Broadband Provider
>> in the 2006 Internet Industry Awards http://www.madasafish.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date:
>> 06/06/2006
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

On Jun 7, 2006, at 9:44 AM, davidhatton@totalise.co.uk wrote:

>
>
>
>> Double your amounts of everything and use a foam roller to coat
>> with. Then
>> buff with the hake as needed.
>>
>
> It seems to go on too thick for me. I need it to be thin 'cos I use
> photofloods
> not UV tubes..
>
> David H
>
>
> ---- - Madasafish - Voted Best Heavy Consumer Broadband Provider in
> the 2006 Internet Industry Awards http://www.madasafish.com/
>
Received on 06/07/06-11:27:24 AM Z