Re: Gum Chemicals - starting out question

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 09/10/04-10:09:26 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> ...The dark lithographers' gums consistently printed 5 or 6
> widely-separated steps, while the pure gum arabics consistently printed
> 7 to 9 steps that were more nicely graduated.

This is not my finding... I find the number of steps as much a factor of
exposure-development ratio as the type of gum. And of course I do more
than one test, but this was for a newbie to see if the gum is feasible --
will it clear and do steps. Some will, some won't.

>> I'll add that I never found the "purest" gum worked the best in
>> printing. For instance, I found the Daniel Smith "Premier" (or maybe it
>> was "Premium?) gum almost unusable.

> You're having fun bashing my favorite gums, aren't you.

Actually, this is not my idea of fun. But I felt I owed it to the sum
total of human knowledge to state my findings. Sorry to have upset you.

> ... I ignored the
> "bad" label you gave to my old favorite in your last mail, but really,

It's true, I did say *I* found it bad.

> this name-calling isn't very useful.

Which name calling is that?

> Obviously the Daniel Smith Premium
> is not "unusable" because it's my favorite so far of the candidates for
> my new favorite gum.

I said *I* found it unusable. But I must have been wrong. I probably lied.

> Formulary gum wasn't "bad" as you characterize it,
> because it served me faithfully for years without ever doing me wrong.

What I said was *I* found it bad, but, as we have seen, I'm a bad person,
and the reason Formulary gum liked you better was because you are a good
person. However, some newbies may lack your virtue, so it's only fair to
warn them.

> it's a personal preference. Each to his own.

That's what I was trying to explain. Sorry to have been so inarticulate.

Received on Fri Sep 10 22:09:39 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/01/04-09:17:55 AM Z CST