Re: Single coat Gum Print..Negative aspects

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/30/05-02:32:01 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Joe Smigiel wrote:
> 1) The enlarged negative should be low enough in contrast and
> transparent enough that you can read type through all parts of it when
> the negative is placed on a newspaper.

Hi David, et al,
Joe's description above is the best simple description I've ever heard
of an ideal gum negative, and beats what I usually say, "In my
experience the best negative for gum printing is fairly thin" all

However, though it's hard to guess from the description what's going
on, if it's what it sounds like, that you're not having any luck
producing a gum image at all, I would say that it's probably not the
negative that's your problem. In my experience, while you can change
things about the tonal scale of the print by changing the negative, I've
never seen a negative that won't print a gum image, and I would guess
I've used about as wide a range of negative types as anyone, ranging
from laser printer negatives to in-camera negatives to cliche-verre
(drawn) negatives.

So I guess like Dave I'd like more information about what your
unsuccessful prints look like; I suspect maybe we could help you more
by troubleshooting the printing process itself.


> 2) Don't size or presoak your paper for a single coat print.
> 3) Pray.
> Joe
> >>> 06/30/05 7:23 AM >>>
> Hi All,
> Please bear with me as I know that my request may be regarded as the
> ramblings of a demented idiot. I have been attempting to create a single
> coat gum portrait ( of her not me) as a gift for my daughter. Problem is
> see, I can't do it! And I've opened my big mouth now so..
> I need to know what an inverted negative for a successful single coat
> gum print. I don't need to see the finished product (thought that would
> be nice) I just need to get a 'feel' for how the thing should look. I
> don't really understand when people say ' use a negative that would
> print well on grade two paper' or 'the density range should be log 1.17'
> etc. These things mean nothing to me as I am a moron. Could someone take
> pity on me, decipher this request and post such an image somewhere on
> the web? I have already used enough gum to effect futures for the next
> million years..
> Thanks in advance,
> David H
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 6/23/2005
Received on Thu Jun 30 09:27:53 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/07/05-11:30:55 AM Z CST