From: Katharine Thayer (email@example.com)
Date: 09/10/03-03:50:50 AM Z
Clay Harmon wrote:
> My language was imprecise. I should have said "with some old
> silver-gelatin negatives.." Meaning i developed them with a lower
> density range than would be normal for my usual palladium. My thinking
> was that they might make some dandy negatives with which to print one
> coat gum.
Thanks for clarification; I thought that might be the case.
As to whether gouache is the best way to go for one-coat gums, this is a
matter of taste. I'm starting to see, as a result of watching
discussions here, that some people apparently equate density with
opacity; they think they haven't achieved sufficient density in gum
unless no light comes through the paint from the paper at all; they want
a flat dead tone like a graphic arts poster. To me density and opacity
are two different things. You can have density without opacity (which I
prefer) or opacity without density (with a light-colored gouache, for
example). If you want opacity, with or without density, use gouache; if
you want density without opacity, use watercolor.
A good density for one-coat gum can be achieved with many watercolor
pigments or mixtures thereof. What I do is mix complements to make
darks, just as I do in painting
> On Sunday, September 7, 2003, at 10:37 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> > Clay wrote:
> >> And while we're on the subject of gum, I've got an itch to try some
> >> single coat gums on some old silver-gelatin negatives, and wondered if
> >> anyone had a good watercolor pigment recommendation that will give a
> >> reasonable amount of density without a lot of staining. Is gouache the
> >> way to go here? Any kinds to avoid?
> > Am I understanding you correctly when I read this to mean that you are
> > planning to print gum on film?
> > Katharine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST