Would you consider Gum Bichromates to be a hybrid process?

[stormbytes]

I'm feeling philosophical and thought I'd throw this into the mix:

Seeing as tri-color gum bichromates are (now-conventionally) done using Pictorico inkjet negatives. I mean, honestly I can't imagine anyone in their right mind is making traditional color separations. How does Apug view this process from the point of view of its strict policy of "no-digital/hybrid" discussion?

 

[MattKing]

Discussion about the preparation of the digital negatives is not permitted.

Display of the final results in the galleries is not permitted.

Discussion about the other parts of the process is fine.

And there are people here making traditional colour separations.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are lots of processes that are being done often with digital hybrid techniques, and they are off topic for APUG.

APUG is a place where people can find out, if they really want to know, how to make traditional enlarged negs with film and optics and how to make traditional color separations, to make real unsharp masks with pin registered film and interleaving acetate sheets, how to retouch negatives by hand with pencils and brushes and sharp implements, to make photographs with film projected onto photographic paper with light, to mix their own chemicals, to coat their own paper and plates, and do all sorts of things that no one in their right mind does anymore.

There are several people discussing digital gum printing, however, on DPUG.org. Keith Taylor is a master of digital separations (I've seen real prints in person), and he's been a regular contributor. Check it out!

 

[BrianShaw]

Gum Bichromates, as a whole, are not a hybrid process... only when a digital neg is used. But I'm not even convincing myself that pigeon-holing like that is correct. The gum process itself and the final product does not care how the neg was produced... only APUG moderators care in terms of whether the production of those kinds of negs are discussed here or elsewhere.

 

[BrianShaw]

p.s Great pot stirring! It must be snowing in New England.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Start a discussion of digital negs, and we get plenty of thread reports. There are people who join APUG to avoid that discussion, and would like us to stick to our charter, and thus far, that policy has been successful.

 

[stormbytes]

Wow quite the stir! I suppose its a good thing I phrased this as a question

David:

Thanks for the detailed response. I suppose should point out when I said "anyone in their right mind" (re: making color separations the traditional route) it was intended with a dash of sarcasm, alluding to practical aspects. I understand Apug and how it works.

As for Dpug.org, I've been active on that forum, on-and-off since its inception. I'm glad to see Sean finally got around to 'modernizing it' a bit!

Will look for Keith Taylor's stuff. Do you happen to have a gallery URL ?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Look up the work of Cy DeCosse. Keith Taylor prints for him.

 

[tpersin]

you can read more about Keith on his website/blog: http://keithtaylorphoto.com/

 

[michael9793]

SO, If we discuss how many layers of gum we use and the colors that were involved, plus what color film, slide or negative and paper we use, we're fine. But if the photograph was taken digitally or we want to talk about how the negative was made and it was not made by old conventional ways, then take it to Dpug. My feelings are that as long as only the analog part is discussed then we can stay here but if someone uses a digital negative, and some one wants to know how he did it then just say we will have to go to Dpug to talk about it. Is this fair. Personally I will show my final image sometimes here because it is analog but talk about the digital part in Dpug.

 

[flemming sarup]

All my gum prints are made from B+W 24/36 neg. and enlarged to a big B+W film it is a slow proces but exeiting.