Usually, but not always, color carbon is more precise and sharp, what we think of as straight photography. Likewise, gum lends itself more to a pictorialist style.
I teach workshops, but the next one won't be until 2027 or maybe even later. A few of my students have gone on to teach workshops as well. You can contact either Michael Strickland, or Katayoun Dowlatashi.
Worst printing process ever, totally not accessible to the general public. Even photogravure seems less painful than all these steps and calibration it takes to make this carbon transfer print and frankly, for any type of modern-straight photography a simple silver gelatin print would do, this is so unnecessary
What’s the benefit of this process? Especially compared to traditional gelatin silver, darkroom prints or even quality rag paper and a quality pigment ink photo printer?
Compared to inkjet, it's like the difference between a chips-ahoy cookie and a homemade cookie. Even the best inkjet print looks terrible next to a carbon print. Silver prints can be very nice, but carbon prints still have a few advantages, namely: ability to print in color, more permanent, more options for paper, and a 3d quality that you just don't get from silver prints.
@@brucehorn7600 No, It’s almost non-toxic. I just wasn’t able to get non-toxic certification because there is very little data on it. But similar diazido compounds are very low toxicity or non-toxic. I would much rather use DAS than dichromate. However, that’s not the main reason why I use it. DAS is stable so calibration is a million times easier.
@@carbonprint Thanks Calvin. It is good to see your real world assessment of that. Looking at the data sheet for it makes it appear more hazardous. Good to know. There are many things that attract me to carbon printing for the type of photographs I make but the toxicity of dichromate is a deal killer for me. Nice to know there is an option that can be used with just normal PPE.
Fantastic video! Love the results. Huge respect for your skill and dedication. I printed a lot with cyanotype and gum in the past. Large 11x14 and 16x20 litho negatives, blown up from 35mm or 4x5 originals. I actually made color separations onto litho film and printed four color gum, or gum using cyanotype for the blue layer.
Calvin, thanks for all your hard work. I used to make alt prints in the 80s and 90s but stopped when I developed autoimmune issues and environmental sensitivities. I also engaged in traditional fine art print making and appreciated over the years people's work to develop eco-friendly options to commercialize. It isn't easy, it often isn't commercially successful but sometimes lightning strikes and a product takes off. I'm hoping yours is around for a long while because I have plans...
Thanks. Yes, hopefully sales pick up. Right now I'm 13k euros in the red. It would be nice if there was more interest in non-toxic alternatives, especially since it's a lot easier to use.
@@carbonprint Ouch, you're at that painful stage. Well IMO printmaker's friend should become the next akua kolor since there seems to be a string parallel between the two products, marketing and stories. I shall not only give it a try for gum prints I'll experiment with it to see if it can be etched since I really want to print gum oil process and dont want to use dichromate.
Hi! I stumbled upon your video while researching gum printing, and I must say, I'm thoroughly captivated. As a complete novice in both gum printing and any classic printing techniques, I'm starting from the ground up in my learning journey. I have a quick question: Is a separate digital color negative required for color gum printing? If so, what steps should I take to create a color negative from a standard digital photo file? Would your book provide information on this as well? I hope my question doesn't sound too naive, but I'm genuinely curious and had to inquire. Thank you.
Thank you :-) You can use any type of negative with gum printing, but if you are starting with a digital file, you will probably make either inkjet or imagesetter negatives. For BW printing, only one negative is needed, but for color, at least three will be needed for cyan, magenta, and yellow. And yes, all of that is covered in the book.
Dear Calvin, This is a brilliant representation of the exposure method and layers. As always a genius in your field 🌷🪲. Taking that according to the demonstration, if we expose 4 layers, Does it mean we have 4 negatives as we did in various other methods ❓ namely- Highlight Light midtones Darker midtones And Shadow ❓ I'd love to hear. Thank you, i miss your studio! M.m
Thanks. This method is for continuous tone negatives. Just one negative. Very different from what we did with halftone negatives in the studio. Here you control the tonal separations through the exposure times instead of making separate negatives in photoshop.
Hi Calvin great way to explain it visually. Just a basic quiestion: in the second method ( succesive coatings and exposures with a single development in the end). Is the exposure of each layer done with the diffrent negative each time (with adjusted density) or the same negative for all layers?
I think it would need to be one negative otherwise you would have the same registration errors. By coating all this layers you increased the dynamic range of the paper. So if I understand correctly you would then also use a single negative with a wider dynamic range to perform a print.
Ohhh now i get it! Same negative! But each layer would have a different concentration and a shortening exposure time. Now , what's the concentration dilution gradient ❓ Mm
THIS IS AMAZING!! I am a student at George Mason University and have been looking for alternative processes in the film photography world to be more environmentally conscious and this just made my day. I can't wait to buy this and try it out :)
I definitely like the Gum print better. I thought the blacks were darker on the inkjet print but the the darker areas on the gum showed more detail, textures & I guess more tonal values if I’m saying it rite. Pretty good vid. Hopefully one day you will be able to show you spraying all the layers. About 40 years ago I developed around 4 rolls of BW on my own. Strictly amateur with no dodging or burning or multiple exposures because didn’t know anything about it. So I told you that because guessing you sprayed the layers on & then exposed it to the light or dis it the other way around? Thank you for any replies.
@@johnli6736 Arches and HPR are not glossy. Some papers stain much more than others, they need to be treated or sized. I recommend this book- thewetprint.com/gum/
Sir can i interview you for some brief introduction about gum oil? This for my thesis. Under standing the process of gum oil printing. We need 3 person to interview for the thesis.
No, it's just for replacing the use of dichromate in gum printing. I use non-toxic DAS to replace dichromate in carbon printing. I'm putting together a group order if interested.
@@carbonprint thank you, I’m getting interested in contact printing but I’m nowhere near to actually trying it out yet. I understand the process is quite different compared to carbon transfer, but I was wondering if the final product could compare to carbon transfer as print quality goes.
@@s70cas7ic0 They can be very similar or very different. Depends on how you handle the process. Both can create high-quality prints. Carbon wins for resolution.
Why photographers call any photosensitive mixture an "emulsion"? to my knowledge no photographic process uses an actual emulsion, they are usually solutions and suspensions.
Fantastic work .. and most interesting to learn more. But Your webpage is not very interesting :-) Tried to se for workshops. Looking forward to see more
The website crashed. Take a look now. There's little information on workshops because they are all booked for this year, and I won't be offering them again for a while. The website is a work in progress.
Looks a little *too* good. Appears to lack the handmade look/charm of gum prints. But I'll be following the progress of your product and I wish you well! Back in the 1980s (and before, I guess), there was a product on the market called KwikPrint, which seemed to amount to gum prints in a bottle. I once had a bottle of black, but I believe that KwikPrint also came in process colors. Anyway, it was very convenient and less daunting than mixing chemistry for gum ptints, all of which is to say that you may have a winner on your hands with a product that allows for manipulation and control of prints, straight from the bottle, without the hurdle of grappling with toxic chemicals. I would think that Printmaker's Friend might be very popular with people who want to get a feel for alternative photographic processes, and for more experienced photogs who want fine control over their prints.
Jacquard makes a product called SolarFast which would be close in properties to KwikPrint. The problem is permanence. Dye-based processes are going to fade fast. You can use PMF to make prints that look identical to what you would consider a normal look for a gum print.
@@carbonprint Thanks for your response to my comment! I suppose that, among other variables, choice of paper/support would make a difference as far as the look of the final print. Your prints in the viddy look super detailed and saturated. Will PMF come in pre-mixed colors?
Amazing work really that's great, I wanna ask you just if you would like to share it what kind of printer do use to print such a big negative, I would like to try it firstly a smaller size, but I'm curious about a printer and plastic foil negative, maybe for my future work. Thank you Calvin! Best Jan
