Re: my work online

From: Christina Z. Anderson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 11/14/05-06:41:17 PM Z
Message-id: <006901c5e97d$6e84d4f0$5c6992d8@christinsh8zpi>

Sorry; fingers so cold my last email got sent without writing in it!
I've got it!!!
Kerik and Clay call them Gumover Platinums. How about instead of tricolor
gum over cyanotype i say Tricolor Gumover Cyanotypes???

Anyway, to the question by Ricardo of why the cyanotype layer--it's sharp,
it's grainless, it's deep, and it is a great registration aid, now that I
eyeball registration over a lightbox. But a layer of thalo blue would
accomplish the same purpose.

Too, there is something soooo magical about doing it; first you get this
cyano layer that is just...so so. then you put on the yellow layer, and you
get this garish yellow/green/blue print that looks like you cannot resurrect
it, but then again there are indications that green is where green should be
and yellow is where yellow should be. Then the magenta layer, and voila--it
comes out of the bath like magic, with all the colors where they should be.
It is truly a time intensive, laborious process. But that magic is true
whether you use cyanotype or gum for your blue.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: my work online

>
> Actually I think the confusion could be eliminated by simple punctuation.
> I'm reading the phrase "tricolor gum over cyanotype" as "tricolor gum,
> over cyanotype" which to be accurate would need four layers. But since
> what you really mean is a tricolor print of which one layer is cyanotype,
> the label could read "Tricolor -- gum over cyanotype" or even "Tricolor
> Print -- gum over cyanotype" which would read unambiguously without adding
> much verbiage. Just a suggestion,
> Katharine
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
>> On Nov 14, 2005, at 6:13 AM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>> The gum images are labeled as "Tricolor Gum Over Cyanotypes." I think
>>>> Chris later explained that these are duocolor gums over cyanotype, in
>>>> other words the cyanotype is used as the cyan layer of the "tricolor
>>>> gum,"
>>>> which makes them of course *not* tricolor gums, except for "Vanity,
>>>> Vanity." But to my eye, many of these images also have a black layer,
>>>> easily distinguishable from the cyanotype or blue layer.
>>>
>>> Katharine and David,
>>>
>>> A couple clarifications.
>>>
>>> They are"Tricolor"--three colors.
>>>
>>> I could call them Tricolor **Prints** made from gum over cyanotype but
>>> that
>>> is pretty wordy and most people could give a rip. I figured most people
>>> realize that saying "Tricolor Gum Over Cyanotype" indicates that there
>>> is a
>>> layer of cyanotype in there. I label one Tricolor Gum and the other
>>> Tricolor Gum over Cyanotype--seems pretty straightforward to me.
>>>
>>> But then if I print an extra layer of a different gum color does that
>>> qualify as a Quadcolor?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> David and Chris,
>> I think the confusion here comes from the fact that the phrase "Tricolor
>> Gum" has a specific meaning to most gum printers who've been around a
>> while; it means CMY printed in gum using color separations. When I
>> label a print "tricolor gum" and when Livick labels a print "tricolor
>> gum," for a couple of examples, this is what we mean. I understand the
>> way you're using the phrase, but I think it's confusing to anyone who has
>> understood the phrase in the established sense and might be confusing to
>> curators, for example, when your work is held in museums. And if you
>> used four different colors to make a print, you could call it whatever
>> you like (my personal terminology for something like that is "multiple
>> gum bichromate" or just "gum bichromate") but "tricolor gum" is reserved
>> for a particular kind of gum print.
>>
>> I was tired last night; forgive me for seeing black where there was no
>> black. It looked to me that there was a black layer that was
>> distinguishable from all the other layers but obviously my eyes were
>> playing tricks on me.
>> Katharine
>>
>
>
Received on Mon Nov 14 18:42:28 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/01/05-02:04:50 PM Z CST