Gum Prints from LF negatives.

I posted an image "Sylvian Meadows" in the "Standard" gallery. It is a contact print from an 8x10 negative. I have been working with Gum for a year and 1/2 doing tricolors and monochromes from digital negatives. I finally decided to try an in camera negative and was really nicely surprised by the result. There is a noticeable improvement in subtlety of tonal gradation and in fine resolution of the final print. I attained a level of quality that I had not expected from gum.

Since the printing process is slow and labor intensive already the extra work of large format shooting and processing is not a very big addition to the already labor intensive workflow. I "overexposed" the film by one stop and pulled development by N-1 to adjust the negative density range to the gum process

I was happily surprised and pleased by being able to make an entirely analog image.

Hurrah for entirely analogue images! I'll look for the image in the gallery.

While I do platinum prints and carbon prints, I also find that camera negs rock. But I tend to underexpose and over-develop (N squared ) for these processes.

Hi Vaughn, Yes Platinum at least and I think Carbon are long tonal range processes. Gum is a bit more primitive being a very short tonal range process, hence an opposite film developing method is needed and in addition one must print three layers to express highlights, mid tones and shadows. Even with all of that effort, The print still has a much much shorter tonal range than platinum or palladium.

I would definitely agree on the fact that in-camera / real film negatives have the "potential" of giving better results compared to the other option (in which the resolution of the negative is limited to something around 14 lines per mm - at best) "in case of small prints", but OTOH, I've seen (similarly sized) gum prints made with digital negatives that were as good as (if not better) than the sample image...

Jon, maybe you have to change your printer and/or transparency and/or digineg making method (or refine it), because what you've got, to me, looks absolutely doable w/ diginegs too! (At least according to what I'm able to see from the small reproduction...)

Regards,
Loris.

I would like to see more of your images. I have been thinking about doing tricolor prints for a while now. I would be curious to see what your look like.

Yes, digital negatives do give a good result. In my work setting I can make very good gums from digital negatives. If I do gum over cyanotype "tricolors" the density range and sharpness can be better than pure gum prints.

This sample image suffers from a low print density range. I liked softness, so I left it as is, however additional layers of dark color or a different set of colors could yield a more dramatic image.

In my case each print is its own adventure and there are many failures. I am happy to have LF negatives as one tool along side the digital negatives in the gum printing toolbox. Each method has its strengths. My apologies if I seemed to be putting digital negatives down.

jh

Loris Medici said:

I would definitely agree on the fact that in-camera / real film negatives have the "potential" of giving better results compared to the other option (in which the resolution of the negative is limited to something around 14 lines per mm - at best) "in case of small prints", but OTOH, I've seen (similarly sized) gum prints made with digital negatives that were as good as (if not better) than the sample image...

Jon, maybe you have to change your printer and/or transparency and/or digineg making method (or refine it), because what you've got, to me, looks absolutely doable w/ diginegs too! (At least according to what I'm able to see from the small reproduction...)

Regards,
Loris.

Click to expand...

I have a small web site that is mostly tricolor.

Dead Link Removed

jh