Re: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer

Terry,

I thank you a lot for all the information you provided me and everyone else directly and indirectly here on the list and now with this particular message.

Just so you know, you seem to have an instinct for photography, by this I mean with all the experience you have, when you arrive somewhere interesting you see in your head what it could look like in print(s) right, I don't have this hability quite yet, at least not to the same degree as you but I think I can say that I have the same kind of instinct for characteric curves graph as Kodak call them (those with exposure (log H) on the bottom and density on the vertical) All this to say that now I have found what I was looking for and I won't go around anymore like an headless chicken. It is just a total waiste of energy.

As for going to europe or anywhere else for now, it is out of the question, my life partner and I are buying a house pretty soon and it needs a lot of work. Maybe sometime in the not so far future we will meet and I'd like that very much. I could say the same for everyone else on the list and I have a feeling it will happen someday.

Regards
Yves

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: TERRYAKING@aol.com
  To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 1:59 PM
  Subject: Re: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer

  Yves

  If one needs a monochrome print, it should be possible to produce one with a single exposure. using a particular pigment. It is significant that the monochrome gum prints with apparent long density ranges and good gradation tend to be in a colour resembling burnt sienna. Coincidentally or not, it is the same colour as the carbon tissue that Autotype still produce. My carbon prints using this tissue are very similar to the results which Puyo was getting with his gum prints in 1900.

  Incidentally, i have never seen much point in measuring the d max of prints., you can see that ! it is the density of the negative where care is needed.

  If one wishes to produce multicolour prints either to try to produce a three or four colour gum print that resembles a C type, then clearly one requires more than one colour.

  My own practice is often to vary the colour according to the aerial perspective in order to produce 'romantic' landscapes. This ideally matches the characterisrtics of the gum process.. My method enables me to produce a good range of tone from a single coat with exposures of three minutes down to less than a minute. My exposure times can also be less than a miinute. Using this method, and paper negatives, I obtained my Fellowship of the Royal Photographic Society with gum prints back in 1982. My gum prints have been published widely and been shown in international exhibitions, used for book covers and advertising and have adorned the board room walls of more than one company of international repute.. i have been described as a world authority in the field.

  Despite all this whenever I have suggested here that there are better ways of making gum prints than giving 15 exposures and more with very long development times to finish up with a print of limited
  density, I have been derided. Unfortunately, there is an alternative school of gum printing where the colours are very crude displaying a lack of colour sense and contrast control. This style is what the outside world tends to associate with gum printing.

  Before going on to in camera negatives, it may be helpful to point out that given the flexibility of Th. gum process, at least the way I do it, it does not really matter much whether the negative you use has a density range of 2.5 or O.5 as it is possible to get a good print from both. The results depend upon the comobinatiomn of pigment. exposure and development of the print.

  But for other processes, one needs to make the negative fit the process, as you elegantly put it, like a glove. The advantage of this is that it is possible to relate exposures to development times with a simple curve. I was showing my students this curve a long time before 'digital' took over photography in the public mind It should be possible though to produce a respectable gum, platinum, salt or kallitype (VDB) print from the same negative exposed and developed for platinum. I have a series on my studio wall which illustrates a range of processes made from one negative shot for platinum. The salt print from that series tends to produce a sense of wonderment in those who were used to the limitations of silver gelatine. The only process where a separate internegative was required was the cyanotype where the ideal negative has a d max of 1.4. Strangely enough though the cyanotype rex process enables one to use practically any negative to produce a print.

  As to the frequency of obtaining an appropriate negative it depends on the process. For gum printing I use a 35mm or medium format camera. I tend to use less film than most as I could see little advantage in subsidising the share holders of the film manufacturers.. I do not shoot hundreds of exposures toi shoot one or two. I tend only expose when the 'one or two' are in the frame. Schlepping around a large format camera and its lenses, tripod and other associated gubbins, tends to make one even ore disciplined in one's use of film especially now that one is concerned as .to whether there will be more FP4 to buy. I suppose that it may be an advantage that my exposures can be timed to the nearest ten minutes ranther than the millisecond. I have been known to shoot a couple of rolls of 35mm film during a large format exposure. I have been off to lunch to find a queue of German tourists waiting their turn to look through the lens whike he exposure was in progress.

  This approach can also led to the one not taking a picture at all as the light or other conditions were not right.

  Mist of my cameras over the years have been Olympuses up to the Camedia digital camera. But having met Dick Lyons last year, he is the designer of the Foveon chip, I bought a Sigma SD 9 which is a revelation.

  I hope that you will be able to come to APIS in Oxford in September.

  All the best

  Terry

  In a message dated 3/5/06 3:51:33 pm, gauvreau-yves@sympatico.ca writes:

    Terry,

    are you saying what I think you are saying, you can do a gum print like you say below in a single exposure.? Even if you say you need more then one exposure to do it like you said below and if Katherine is right and it is possible to get 10-12 steps to show with the best gum emultion one can make, then there is absolutely no reason in this world we can't make an excellent gum print in a single exposure and I'm not even using the curse word here. If as you say these guy did it in the 1900 why is everyone saying you can't make a good or better an excellent gum print in a single exposure even on this list, in fact some even tried to ridicule even the thought of it. You are absolutely right, I've been missing the point all along about gum printing. Did you know some folks are making up to 13-15 exposures gum prints.

    As for making negative for platimum, something doesn't add up, correct me if I'm wrong and I may very well be, an in camera negative as to be carefully (precicely) exposed and develop for each scene because the lighting condition change all the time and everywhere and also it must mach the print process like a glove. Now if you do that for your patinum work (negs), I'm not surprised to ear your in camera negatives make better print then digi-negs. What I find surprising, knowing the rigor and control one must have to secure perfectly matching negatives in practice, is that you seem to do reach this perfect match let just say frequently. Even the most sophisticated digital cameras can't do it all the time and they never forget anything, the exposure is time to the millisecond, etc. I was never satisfied with the decicion I made at a scene while taking the shot(s) even with my D70 I always did some fine tuning on the original before printing it.

    Today, I've come to the following approach, when I go out and take shots, I try to capture on film as much information (data) as possible or should I say as much as my scanner can read with minimal distortion and you would be right to say there maybe lots of info my scanner will leave out or not be able to read if you prefer. If I need to manipulate, numerically that is, my negatives and I always do, ok I'll admit I'm loosy at making perfect negative, I consistantly miss the target, I have a good excuse I think, I'm only human. For me, trowing out my digital camera is the best move I ever did, surprised, don't be no digital camera can capture an image like a large format camera can especially if you want to print large as well. This may very well not be true for long but I don't care and when I say I don't care I really mean it, soon I'll try out my 4 pinhole cameras cardboard box really and if I like what I see I'll probably put aside my 645 for while. I know I'm crazy I'm not seeking the perfect negative anymore, cristal clear image, depth of field, etc all of these mean absolutely nothing if the image doesn't make you physically react when you see it, yes my goal and my only goal now is to capture the magic of light, will I never be able to do it is another story. Yes this is the same guy who claim he can juggle with number and make them do what he wants, this new concept I'm working on will be able to do exactly what I claim pixel by pixel without any curve(s), compression or expension of any kind and if there is enough distinct densities a printer can produce to translate a 16 bits black and white digital image into 24 bits equivalent density triplets then may be you'll find pretty soon it is not worth the trouble to carry a big 8x10 around anymore because it will no longer make a difference unless of course they idea is to enlarge the 8x10 negative beyond the capabalities of smaller negatives.

    Regards

    Yves

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: TERRYAKING@aol.com

    To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

    Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:18 AM

    Subject: Re: Back-exposing on plastic (was: Re: Gum transfer
Received on 05/03/06-03:00:56 PM Z