Re: Foxlee Gum Process

From: Dave Soemarko ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/24/04-12:02:34 PM Z
Message-id: <002501c45a15$6dc92b90$0500a8c0@W>

I am guessing, but I don't think the non-exposed gelatin is washed off in
the first development.

I think the glycerin used is probably fat/oil-based glycerin, the acid
breaks it up so that it binds better with the exposed gelatin. During second
development/soaking, the unexposed gelatin absorbed water, and the water
expel the oil-based glycerin, so the "ink" was released.

Basically similar concept has been used in lithography and certain steps of
other printmaking methods.

Dave S

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Foxlee Gum Process


Maybe he just made a mistake once and did it this way and went "Eureka!"

I think the Guinness hypothesis is the best though....

Do you think the layer of pigment that is added later just adheres to the
"sticky part" of the paper where the gelatin remains that was possibly
by the dichromate? Does the non-exposed gelatin wash off in the first
development bath?

Mark Nelson

In a message dated 6/24/04 10:48:17 AM, writes:

> PS Correction!
> (mind you, no bichromate has been supposedly washed out in the water)
> should say (mind you, no bichromate**, it** has been supposedly washed out
> in the water). In other words, the bichromate is washed out (not cleared,
> tho)of the exposed print that is exposed under a normal neg, and then the
> layer of pigment that is applied afterwards to this developed paper
> no bichromate.
> What is weird: how, do you think, he would ever have devised this
> I mean, was he snorting Guinness or something?
> Chris
Received on Thu Jun 24 12:03:20 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/02/04-09:40:14 AM Z CST