From: Ryuji Suzuki (email@example.com)
Date: 09/04/03-11:02:00 PM Z
From: Kerik <Kerik@kerik.com>
Subject: Re: coating method
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:54:49 -0700
> I'm not familiar with the process Ryuji is attempting,
Well, it's the latest member of alternative processes (I think) but
for some reason very unpopular besides those who use bottled emulsion
products for enlarging papers.
> but if the consistency or the sensitizer is anything like gum,
Now I'm not familiar with gum bichromate process, but my emulsion is a
bit thicker than latex paint I used to paint my apartment. It's about
comparable to the creamy part of rissoto for vegetable dishes, less
viscous than the paste made from yucca startch (what's the name for
this?) people eat with muqueca in Brasil, maybe also comparable to the
consistency of New England clam chowder in day 2, maybe a bit thicker
than hollandaise sauce... but obviously this isn't a precise
> I'd suggest trying a smooth foam roller. These are about 6" long
> and are very effective for super-smooth gum bichromate coating. You
> want the white ones, which are the smoothest.
Ok - I'll look around my local hardware stores.
> I've also started using the roller to smooth my gelatin sizing after first
> applying it with either a glass rod or hake brush. After spreading the
> sizing, I use a dry roller brush to smooth it out. You must work quickly
> before the sizing starts to cool and get sticky, but done properly I've
> gotten the smoothest gleatin sizing this way.
So why don't you just get another roller and apply gelatin with it
directly? Is there a good reason?
(Incidentally, in Japanese "hake" literally means brush (though the
kind that is used to paint areas of wall or pieces of something), so
it's a bit strange to see a word brush to follow... I think fish goes
better with hake than brush.)
From: Katharine Thayer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Rollers for gum (was: Re: coating method)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:01:53 +0000
> Someone (Judy maybe?) suggested, back when we were discussing all this,
> that it may be that Stuart's method wouldn't generalize beyond the
> particular gum that he uses. My experiment suggests that this may well
> be so.
Umm... funny, people say the same for gelatin in silver gelatin
Do you think the different results may be at least in part a
consequence of varying amounts or absence of wetting agent, etc? I was
thinking about playing with the amount of Triton X-100 (no, this isn't
a film) and glycerin.
From: Don Bryant <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: coating method
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:07:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
> The Magic Brush will work wonderfully, don't worry about the metal
ferrule and it doesn't shed. IMO, foam brushes should be avoided at
all costs as they waste sensitiser, abraid the paper surface, and
eventually disentigrate leaving foam on your paper surface. And did
I mention that the Richeson also doesn't shed.
That sounds great. It's expensive though. Does the Richeson waste
less sensitiser, but can absorb enough emulsion to make one straight
stroke that's 30 inches long? (I'm testing with 11x14 paper but some
brushes are about to crap out.)
Ken Sinclair also told me about an idea similar to my cotton flannel
except he suggested velvet on support material directly rather than on
Thanks all -- I'll try at least some of them and see which one works
best, while playing around with the wetting agent.
-- Ryuji Suzuki "Reality has always had too many heads." (Bob Dylan, Cold Irons Bound, 1997)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:08:59 PM Z CST