On Jun 7, 2006, at 11:46 AM, davidhatton@totalise.co.uk wrote:
>
> I
> have to say that in all the old gumprints I have seen, paper white
> is a rarity
> indeed.
Hmm, but that may be a different issue than what I'm talking about
here. I took you at your word when you said "As far as contrast is
concerned..If there ain't no paper white in the image
(which there ain't) I don't really want to force the issue" which
makes perfect sense, and I think sometimes we gum printers get
carried away with making sure there is paper white somewhere in the
print just to prove our technical skill (look Mom, no stain!) whether
it makes sense for the image or not.
As far as the old gumprints, many of the ones I've seen, including
reproductions of Demachy's prints (I've never been fortunate enough
to see one in person) were streaked and stained with pigment stain,
which is a different issue. I think the pigment stain is part of the
charm of some of those prints, but it's still pigment stain rather
than tone per se.
> But then contrast is something I have a problem with. Should a
> print have
> the full range of tones from paper white to the darkest possible
> rendering of
> that particular process to be successful?
I've already answered that question from my own perspective, but if
anyone answered this question "yes" then for that person there would
only be one pigment choice available: lamp black, because as far as I
know, that's the only pigment that will give the darkest tone that's
available in gum.
>
> As you say, there's room enough for all.
Precisely.
Katharine
Received on 06/08/06-09:08:16 AM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 07/28/06-08:55:13 AM Z CST