RE: color accuracy in gum bichromate

From: Loris Medici ^lt;>
Date: 11/01/04-07:09:12 AM Z
Message-id: <000501c4c013$fe3256c0$ce02500a@altinyildiz.boyner>

Well, I feel the same about it; I personally expect something more
"organic" which says "handmade" in a much stronger way when I looking at
a gum print (I'm not implying this is necessarily "the correct way of
approaching a gum print" of course) But also, for me the only way of
observing Livick's gum prints are through the computer screen - which is
indeed a bad way to evaluate the organic qualities of a print - and I
must admit this sole fact alone makes our judgement quite hadicapped.

BTW, I see nothing less enjoyable in using imagesetter negatives for
alt. processes - unless you want to attract attention to the point that
you take a "purer" approach by solely using in-camera negatives in your
artist's statement. (uh-oh, am I opening a pandora's box or what?)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Smigiel []
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: color accuracy in gum bichromate
> ...
> His prints are huge and IMO the most accurate color gumprints
> I know of. But, he's also using imagesetter negatives which
> I presume are made by a service bureau and, at least for some
> of his work, spraying the emulsion. His method is very
> precise and the results remarkable, but somehow I think it
> would not be as enjoyable as making your own negatives and
> brushing the emulsion as is standard practice. Two separate
> issues. Sorry if it sounded like they might be related.
> Joe
Received on Mon Nov 1 07:03:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:32 AM Z CST