Ok guys, you've got me confused (it's easy enough to do, so don't be too proud :))

I say: "...screen drying pattern." Don says, "Denise, I disagree, that's the screen pattern on the surface of the paper."

What am I missing here? Fabriano Artistico is a mould made paper. That means there is a pattern on one side. That side is considered the 'back side'. I can see it under darkroom light, but then again, I go through a dozen sheets of the stuff a week. Paper manufacturers don't follow any particular rules about watermark placement, so they're not considered a foolproof way to side a paper.

On the other hand, what possible difference does "front" or "back" make to an artist? Use the side that appeals most to you.

d
Denise,

I'm sorry I completely misread what you wrote. I thought (for some reason) that you mean the pattern was caused by laying the wet gum print face down on a drying screen.

Sorry!

Don

What am I missing here? Fabriano Artistico is a mould made paper. That means there is a pattern on one side. That side is considered the 'back side'. I can see it under darkroom light, but then again, I go through a dozen sheets of the stuff a week. Paper manufacturers don't follow any particular rules about watermark placement, so they're not considered a foolproof way to side a paper.

On the other hand, what possible difference does "front" or "back" make to an artist?

Not much, until someone asks a question "do you print on the front or the back?" :--)

Someone once said that it isn't what we don't know that can hurt us, it's what we know that ain't so. I've just learned that something I "knew" ain't so, thanks to Denise and handprint: which way the watermark reads isn't a reliable guide to which side of the paper the manufacturer meant to be the "front." In his discussion of this, Bruce MacEvoy describes two sizes of Arches cold-pressed paper; on the regular sized sheet the watermark reads correctly from the felt side, and on the double elephant sheet the watermark reads correctly from the wire side.

But he doesn't call one side or other the "front" or "back;" he said in fact that for a long time manufacturers would shave off bumps on the felt side to even the surface and the cuts would show up in a painting, so the wire side was considered the more reliable surface to paint on, but they no longer trim paper that way, so either side is good; he said many people consider the wire side the better surface for painting because it has a more complex texture, incorporating both the wire texture and the felt texture, but "the quality, sizing and handling of the felt and wire sides are essentially the same," it's purely a matter of personal preference which side one uses.

At any rate, if I were using this particular paper, I wouldn't use the wire side for straight gum printing, especially with heavier (darker) pigment mixes, as the lines do show up in the print.
kt

Not much, until someone asks a question "do you print on the front or the back?" :--)

Someone once said that it isn't what we don't know that can hurt us, it's what we know that ain't so. I've just learned that something I "knew" ain't so, thanks to Denise and handprint: which way the watermark reads isn't a reliable guide to which side of the paper the manufacturer meant to be the "front." In his discussion of this, Bruce MacEvoy describes two sizes of Arches cold-pressed paper; on the regular sized sheet the watermark reads correctly from the felt side, and on the double elephant sheet the watermark reads correctly from the wire side.

But he doesn't call one side or other the "front" or "back;" he said in fact that for a long time manufacturers would shave off bumps on the felt side to even the surface and the cuts would show up in a painting, so the wire side was considered the more reliable surface to paint on, but they no longer trim paper that way, so either side is good; he said many people consider the wire side the better surface for painting because it has a more complex texture, incorporating both the wire texture and the felt texture, but "the quality, sizing and handling of the felt and wire sides are essentially the same," it's purely a matter of personal preference which side one uses.

At any rate, if I were using this particular paper, I wouldn't use the wire side for straight gum printing, especially with heavier (darker) pigment mixes, as the lines do show up in the print.
kt

Katherine,

I'm holding in my hand a multi layer gum ove palladium printed on FAEW. There is no hint of a wire mesh pattern in the coated or uncoated areas of the print. Perhaps the steps of pre-shrinking, then treatment in oxalic acid, and finally gelatin sizing negate the screen wire mesh texture. As I said it's there in the virgin paper but not in final prints though there is a 'texture' in the finished print. Please note that the size is put on after the palladium layer.

The idea of printing the 'bad' side does appeal to me though. I often print on Rives BFK for the textured surface but the whiter finish of the FAEW might be nice for some prints too.

Don

Katherine,

I'm holding in my hand a multi layer gum ove palladium printed on FAEW. There is no hint of a wire mesh pattern in the coated or uncoated areas of the print. Perhaps the steps of pre-shrinking, then treatment in oxalic acid, and finally gelatin sizing negate the screen wire mesh texture. As I said it's there in the virgin paper but not in final prints though there is a 'texture' in the finished print. Please note that the size is put on after the palladium layer.


Don, you seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing with you; I'm not. You've already said that there are no noticeable lines in a gum over palladium print on the wire side of FAEW. I have no reason to doubt that assertion, and I don't doubt it. I was simply offering my own observations printing straight gum, mostly with a fairly heavily pigmented mix.

I think it may be somewhat apples and oranges to generalize from gumovers, where the gum and pigment add color and some amount of density to a previously-laid down tonal structure, to a straight gum print, where the entire tonal structure must be provided by the gum and pigment.

All the tests I did on this paper were one-coat tests using one pigment, PBk11; I was interested in seeing the range of density values I could get printing in one coat at various concentrations of the pigment. The pigment is a weak pigment as blacks go, and requires considerably more pigment to attain the same dark values as one can get with much less lamp black, for example. So even the print I showed above, which looks not very dark, is made with a much more pigmented mix than you might suppose (also, the darkest areas of the print aren't shown, which makes it somewhat deceiving). At any rate, that print was made with almost as much pigment as the print from which I show a detail below, which was made with the heaviest mix I was able to mix with this pigment: a 15 ml tube of paint in 15 ml gum. Whether one would ever print with a mix this heavy would be a matter of personal preference; I was intrigued enough with the properties of the pigment, and the mix, that I ordered some more PBk11 to continue these investigations (but on my preferred paper, since it will be a lot easier to see how the mix is printing the flesh tones in the face without the impediment of the line artifact). Here, I was just testing the limits of the pigment: what kind of tonal scale could I get with the pigment mixed as stiff as I could possibly mix it.



I did about 8 of these prints with different pigment mixes, and the only one that was free of an obviously noticeable line pattern was the very least pigmented mix, hence my statement that if I were using this paper to print gum, especially with fairly pigmented mixes, I wouldn't use the screen side. To perhaps overemphasize the point, it had significantly more pigment in it than I'd use to get a much darker value with lamp black, since PBk11 is a much weaker pigment than lamp black, but it gave me only a DMax of about .75. Hmm... I was going to attach that lightest-pigmented print here, but it won't let me, so maybe I'll attach it in a separate post.
Katharine

Don, you seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing with you; I'm not. You've already said that there are no noticeable lines in a gum over palladium print on the wire side of FAEW. I have no reason to doubt that assertion, and I don't doubt it. I was simply offering my own observations printing straight gum, mostly with a fairly heavily pigmented mix.

IKatharine
No I don't think you are arguing with me at all. My point is to those that may not be familiar with this paper a wire mesh texture is not an absolute given for a finished print.

Depending on ones printing methosds as you point out can change the final look of the print surface.

Don

Since I couldn't attach two attachments to the other post, I'm attaching the lesser pigmented print here, the one that printed beautifully on the wire side of FAEW with no line artifacts in the print. This printed with a DMax of .75, as I already said; the most-pigmented mix above printed with a DMax of 1.8, so I'd call that tentatively the approximate range of DMax available from PBk11 in various concentrations. But even this least-pigmented mix has quite a lot of pigment in it... almost half a tube of paint in 15 ml gum.

This is rather off the topic of the present thread, but I can't resist a "teachable moment" to make a point (to the surrounding hills rather than to any particular person here): gum printing, IMO, is all about understanding pigments.
kt

Since I couldn't attach two attachments to the other post, I'm attaching the lesser pigmented print here, the one that printed beautifully on the wire side of FAEW with no line artifacts in the print. This printed with a DMax of .75, as I already said; the most-pigmented mix above printed with a DMax of 1.8, so I'd call that tentatively the approximate range of DMax available from PBk11 in various concentrations. But even this least-pigmented mix has quite a lot of pigment in it... almost half a tube of paint in 15 ml gum.

This is rather off the topic of the present thread, but I can't resist a "teachable moment" to make a point (to the surrounding hills rather than to any particular person here): gum printing, IMO, is all about understanding pigments.
kt
Can we assume that this is a self portrait of sorts?

Don

Can we assume that this is a self portrait of sorts?

Don

No, this is a....I'm not sure what to call it, a prototype, I guess, for an informal portrait series I've been planning for a couple of years, of a group of people who can be found in the winter at a coffeeshop and seafood market owned by two sisters in a fishing village near where I used to live. I really like these people; I admire them and find their grit and equanimity in the face of hardship an inspiration, and hoped to find a way to express their character in portraits.

I meant to do the series using my Mamiya 67, but that turned out to be too intimidating for the folks, so I tried using my silly little digital point and shoot and that seemed less threatening to them, but I've just taken two trial shots so far, and I'm playing around with the first one seeing how it prints in gum. I just happened to grab the negative for those test prints with PBK11, since it was sitting there handy.

I got this camera to take pictures of the gum process for my website; if I'd had any idea I was going to use it for my actual work, I would have spent some more money and got something decent.

This is the owner of the cafe, a remarkable woman, taking a break from cooking crabcakes and fish and chips, with the counter clutter in the background. The scars on her face are from a car accident she had a couple of summers ago; she was very badly hurt but recovered by sheer strength and will power.

That's more than you wanted to know, but a longwinded way of saying no, it's not a self-portrait. Thanks for asking,
Katharine