Re: Autoclaving gum and gelatin

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/08/05-07:19:24 PM Z
Message-id: <a06020431be2f11f46f21@[]>

Hi Chris and all,

As far as I am concerned there is no heat to this issue. I simply
disagreed with Judy on an issue and made my views known in what I
considered, and still consider, to be a civil manner.

On one point, however, I would like to provide some clarification. It
is true that I am not a gum printer at this time and don't generally
involve myself in discussions about gum, but that does not mean I
totally ignorant of the mechanism of the process. In fact, I have
made quite a number (in the dozens and dozens if not hundreds) of
three-color gum prints, using both in-camera separations and enlarged
separation negatives. And, even though that experience is now well
in the past, I remember much of it very well and have a better than
fair understanding of most of the important issues involved in gum

And to put matters in perspective, some of the best gum prints I have
seen are those that did not use any gelatin sizing at all.


>Hi all,
> Well things seem to have heated up a bit today, so hopefully
>I'll lend some clarity. The original issue:
>The question at hand is, does a gelatin sizing **not** work for gum
>if the gelatin has been heated over 140 degrees? Pure and simple.
>Judy says yes, and now it seems Katharine agrees with Judy. Judy
>and Katharine say speckling in a gum print is directly related to
>overheated gelatin. Ryuji and Sandy say no--overheating gelatin
>does not destroy its properties--but the argument is that Sandy and
>Ryuji are not gum printers and therefore what they say does not
> I do not **believe** (theory, not fact) speckling is from the
>overheated gelatin but from other causes--specifically glyoxal sized
>Rives, the only time I have noticed the speckling. And it doesn't
>happen with the first coat, but the third.
> However, I have always been told that overheating gelatin ruins
>it for a size, so have accepted that "fact." When Sandy and Ryuji
>pointed out this is not true, I was thrilled! One more gum myth
>down the drain???? So let's say I am in the "wait and see"
>category--hoping they are right.
>Well, my "wait and see" has come.
>Yesterday I boiled the hell out of my gelatin size. Today I will
>put it to the test on Fabriano Artistico EW, 20 sheets of paper,
>sized with glut added to the gelatin, and see if, in fact, it
>doesn't work. If glut-hardened boiled-the-heck gelatin works fine
>or doesn't, I will find out.
>Am I the only one willing to put my money where my mouth is instead
>of arguing about this? With TWENTY sheets of 16x20 paper and not
>just "one little test"?
>Do you think I will post the results to the list? NO WAY. If you
>want to know the results, email me offlist in a month, when I've
>used up all the papers. I am sick of getting hammered about every
>frikkin' gum statement I make. And Gordon, I held myself back best
>as I could from swearing.
> Let's talk about mudslinging now.
> Judy said:
>>Christina: (a) You say "if Jello starts with boiling water," etc. How did
>>you come up with that? Is that on the package now? What I wrote was that
>>Jello packages used to say "dissolve in hot, NOT boiling water." If you
>>changed that to "starts with boiling water," how can I believe another
>>thing you say?
>CHANGED THAT?? Questioning my credibility??? Even if this was said
>in jest or wit, it is hurtful, Judy. Read the back of a Jello box
>and maybe you'll see I am, in fact, believable. Don't you think I
>would have checked the back of the box 5 times before I posted to
>the list, for fear of some correction to my statements such as
>this???? And have I ever accused you of belonging to some Gotcha
>Gang because you don't agree with me? Attack the information if
>you have to, but not the person.
Received on Tue Feb 8 19:19:38 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/01/05-02:06:54 PM Z CST