Re: tooth and no tooth

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;>
Date: 11/13/04-01:11:16 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Judy Seigel wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Glass and alluminum are perfectly clean without any "tooth" and you can
> >> print perfectly on them, right?
> I haven't heard of anyone who can print gum on a hard surface without a
> substrate or some kind of roughing up. If I remember correctly, Galina
> uses gelatin.
> And I daresay Christopher James is right about ways to get "tooth" on
> those impervious materials... HOWEVER, I think the business about "tooth"
> being needed on paper, needs some qualification: It's quite possible to
> make a reasonable gum print on a smooth paper (I've used for instance a
> Strathmore plate finish drawing paper).

Tooth isn't always visible to the naked eye, but that doesn't mean it
isn't there. Of course one can print on very smooth paper; I haven't
said one can't.. I've printed very nicely on plate surface Bristol
plate and crisp-feeling vellum, but that doesn't refute the truth of
tooth, as very smooth papers still have considerable tooth, plenty
enough for gum to hang onto.They may appear to our normal vision to have
little tooth, but on microscopic inspection you would find all kinds of
hills and valleys in the surface for the atoms to find and latch onto.
What looks perfectly smooth to us will look like mountains and canyons
to something as small as a molecule of gum. It's a matter of scale.

I would say there is a continuum of tooth, going from (1) things with so
much tooth they break up the print, to (2) things with the right amount
of tooth to hold gum and still make a good image, in which category I
would include all the papers that can be used for gum printing,
including the smooth papers listed above then (3) things that don't
have enough tooth to hold gum easily, like mylar, RC photopapers,
glass, aluminum, etc.
Received on Sat Nov 13 09:07:23 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:33 AM Z CST