post alternative techniques

[Erik Larsen]

MEASELS


Attachment 153270 cropped image Rita Leistner.

So here is a twist- older batch of Arches Platine- I bought about 10 sheets of this stuff, this crap had the sticker on the face side of the paper which caused me
all kinds of problems just by the sticker creating marks.

I had two sheets left over and mixed them in with new Arches Platine- where the sticker was on the back.

The swirlies are very obvious- I have not added any gum yet, just palladium. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought it was paper. I have been taught to always
blame operator error and not the materials one uses. I am beginning to think that Arches let the ball go with this batch of paper and basically put it on the market. The sticker
may be the key .

conspiracy theory's are now floating in my head, ( did the Americans really land on the moon?)

I am switching to COT320 and Hannamuhle Paper after this body of work is finished.

Well, at least now you know what the problem was! You might look at the revere paper as well, at least in the US it is very affordable and has positive reviews.

[bob carnie]

I am using the revere for the solarization project, a bit more texture than clients may like.

Well, at least now you know what the problem was! You might look at the revere paper as well, at least in the US it is very affordable and has positive reviews.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I also have that messed up Arches Platine. Ten 22x30 sheets and it ain't cheap, either! It might still work for gum. It should. If not, then for carbon transfer.

[bob carnie]

These last three are Pigment in Gum only on Solarized Colour negative film-

[Tin Can]

These last three are Pigment in Gum only on Solarized Colour negative film-

Excuse my ignorance. What size and how are they displayed. Backlit?

#3 is very nice and reminds me of something I cannot recall.

[bob carnie]

These are Gum prints 16 x20 - Revere Watercolour paper with 2 layers - Garlic and three layers fish and dress.
I am hoping that the viewer moves backward in time and sees these as prints of objects that are not perfect, but with some realism

I work in this method now because of the archival aspects of this printing method.

I am not dissing inkjet or RA4 but my hope is some of these simple objects hang around for a few hundred years or more.

Excuse my ignorance. What size and how are they displayed. Backlit?

#3 is very nice and reminds me of something I cannot recall.

[Tin Can]

These are Gum prints 16 x20 - Revere Watercolour paper with 2 layers - Garlic and three layers fish and dress.
I am hoping that the viewer moves backward in time and sees these as prints of objects that are not perfect, but with some realism

I work in this method now because of the archival aspects of this printing method.

I am not dissing inkjet or RA4 but my hope is some of these simple objects hang around for a few hundred years or more.

Yes, I also like size, historical methods and desire for longivity.

This is what confuses me, "These last three are Pigment in Gum only ON Solarized Colour negative film"

[bob carnie]

The film of choice was colour negative for the dress and fish , I shot on a 4 x5 Sinar Fuji 160- then I hand processed in C41 two hangers at a time so 8 sheets. I used the stainless steel 3.5 gallon tanks for C41 process.


Half way through Developer I took out the hangers and flashed them to raw light which reversed all the colours and made a mackie line black around some of them. The Garlic was black and white film
and I solarized it as well.
Direct scan - clean up - very little PS adjustment- then output each channel that I wanted to print onto pictorico film . I then registered and multiple printed each layer of colour using Daniel Smith pigments in Gum and ammonium dichromate. These were then exposed via exposing unit and then washed off in water.. If you go back in this thread I have linked the whole gum procedure. Post 3304 is where the link is, any other questions I am open for conversation.

[Tin Can]

Thanks Bob for your simple explanation. I am joking about the simple part.

Good to know your process!

[bob carnie]

Look at post 3304 I added it to my last post and you may of missed the reference to the link.

Thanks Bob for your simple explanation. I am joking about the simple part.

Good to know your process!