From: Darryl Baird (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 09/10/02-01:46:40 PM Z
Along with Stuart's work, if your interest is in SHARP, please visit
Stephen Livick's website... www.livick.com
sharp, detailed, LARGE and hard to believe they are gum...
> I can't speak with any authority until Sam Wang stops laughing at my attempts
> at gum printing. I would be interested, if you would be willing to share,
> what paper you found worked best for sharp gum prints. Also, I have found
> the digital negatives look pretty sharp and detailed on platinum. Do you
> think they are not so with gum? If so, any idea why that would be?
> Mark Nelson
> "Went South With The Geese and Flew Home Alone"
> In a message dated 9/10/02 2:45:20 PM, email@example.com writes:
> << Last winter, needing to make a change in gum printing paper (due to a
> change for the worse in the paper I was using, combined with a direction
> in my own work that called for more smoothness and subtlety than the hot
> press watercolor paper I'd been using could provide) I ran dozens of
> test gum prints, contact printing from a 4x5 negative containing very
> fine detail. I was even surprised at the fineness of detail that the gum
> could hold from a small contact print, and I've never been one to argue
> that gum can't do detail. The limiting factor was the paper, not the
> gum. >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST