Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

The extraordinary mechanism underlying the

ferric gum process


Writer and illustrations / a aMichael Andrews

The ferric gum process is like gum bichromate in some respects but it is also radically different. Sensitiser is
brushed onto the paper, the paper is dried and exposed under a suitable image, and only at this point would
pigmented gum be brushed onto the exposed paper.

The Ferric Gum process was first described in The Photographic Journal in 1983 (ref. 1). It was also
described and named for the first time in an article published by AlternativePhotography (ref. 2).
The process works as follows. Ferric chloride solution is brushed onto paper and dried. The paper is
then exposed under a positive image. This destroys much of the chemical. Pigmented gum is
brushed over the paper and the remaining ferric chloride diffuses through the gum, hardening it as it
goes. Finally the print is washed to remove any unhardened gum.
At first sight this description may seem quite mundane; just another photographic process. But look
at it more closely.
It says ‘… gum is brushed over the paper and the remaining ferric chloride diffuses through the
gum, hardening it as it goes’. One might conclude that the gum is brushed over the paper to form a
coating and then the ferric chloride diffuses through this gum after the coating is in place. But this is
not what happens. The ferric chloride is actually diffusing through the gum whilst the latter is
moving across the paper. So the image is formed whilst everything is in motion. Yet the image is
sharp and detailed!
This is surely an extraordinary mechanism. I cannot think of another photographic process which
does anything like it. Many processes involve chemicals diffusing in and out of colloid layers but
none of them do so whilst the colloids are flowing around.
So how does the mechanism work and in particular why isn’t the image blurred or even swept
away in the moving gum? It is clear to me that ferric chloride must harden gum instantly on
contact. I am not saying that the whole image is formed instantly. That couldn’t happen because
chemicals take time to diffuse. I just mean that when ferric chloride comes into contact with gum it
must harden a tiny thickness of the gum instantly.
Now imagine the mechanism happening but imagine it at a microscopic level. Some of the ferric
chloride leaves the paper and dissolves in the moving gum. It hardens a tiny thickness of this gum
instantly. This hardened gum is fixed immediately above the source of the chemical because there is
no time for it to move on. Then some more ferric chloride dissolves and diffuses through this
hardened gum. Eventually it reaches the moving gum. This ferric chloride also hardens a tiny
thickness of the moving gum instantly. And once again the gum is fixed immediately above the
source of the chemical. This process continues until all the ferric chloride is used up. In the end a
considerable thickness of gum could be hardened and all of it would be fixed immediately above the
source of the chemical. This must be so because each tiny bit of the gum is fixed in this way.
This mechanism reminds me of a crystal growing in a solution.
The crystal grows molecule by molecule so it will grow into the same shape whether the solution
around it is moving or not. At least I imagine this is so. In a similar way the gum is hardened bit by
bit, so the image will be the same whichever way the gum is moving.
With this similarity in mind I suggest we could call this mechanism ‘crys-gelling’. Of course the
term wouldn’t apply just to ferric chloride and gum. It would also apply when any chemical diffuses
through any colloid, provided that the colloid is in motion and provided that it forms a hardened
image which is attached to the source of the chemical.
So this is the mechanism which underlies the Ferric Gum process and to me it is almost magical.
But is the actual process any good? Would people choose to use Ferric Gum instead of other
processes? At present they probably wouldn’t. The process is still marred by faults, so it should be
thought of as work in progress.
However the crys-gelling mechanism works just fine. In a way the faults are just peripheral. One
fault is that ferric hydroxide remains in the finished print and it is difficult to clear without
spoiling the image. This fault can be avoided by using gelatine instead of gum. Then the ferric
hydroxide can be cleared after the gelatine has set. Unfortunately gelatine introduces new
difficulties!
Nevertheless I think it would be possible to develop a really good process based on crys-gelling.
This might happen by discovering a new combination of chemical and colloid which worked
perfectly, or it might happen by overcoming the current faults in the Ferric Gum process or one of
its variations. So how good would this ‘perfect’ process be?
The process would be quick and simple to use. It would be at least as simple as the simplest kind of
Gum Bichromate and much simpler than Carbon Printing. It would also be quicker than both these
processes.
The image would be sharp and detailed and it would have a good tonal range, as in Carbon Printing.
The image would be as translucent or opaque as one desired. The pigment cannot affect the
exposure in this process.
The paper would be as smooth or textured as one desired.
The paper wouldn’t require any extra sizing. The manufacturer’s sizing would be quite sufficient.
The process would have some interesting qualities in colour printing. Several colours could be
printed side by side simultaneously and the boundaries between them would be crisp, without any
blending.
Colours could also be printed on top of one another, but in this case each layer might affect the
subsequent ones. Anyone wanting to do proper ‘three colour printing’ should stick to Carbon
Printing!
In conclusion the crys-gelling mechanism could enable a really good photographic process to be
developed; possibly one that combined the best attributes of Gum Bichromate and Carbon Printing
without any of their shortcomings.

Carbon printing, gum bichromate and crys-gelled printing


compared

These diagrams show three different processes in cross-section and very much magnified.
In Carbon printing (fig. 1) the gelatine gets hardened from the top down. This means that after the
exposure everything has to be turned over and attached to a new paper support. Then the soft
gelatine can be washed away to reveal the image held in the hardened gelatine.
In Gum Bichromate (fig. 2) the underlying mechanism is similar. However the need to transfer
everything to a new paper support is avoided in two ways. Firstly a rough textured paper is used;
one with so-called ‘tooth’. This allows most of the hardened gum to be attached to the paper. It is
attached to the ‘tooth’ where the image is thin or to bulk of the paper where the image is thick.
Secondly only thin gum coatings are used in this process.
In Cry-gelled printing (fig. 3) there is no need to do anything special. The gum gets hardened from
the paper upwards. So it is naturally well attached to the paper.
N.B. These diagrams show Crys-gelled printing as a negative working process like the other two.
This is just a convenience. However this kind of printing can actually be made positive or negative
working.

References
1. The Photographic Journal – February 1983 in an article called My way with gum
2. AlternativePhotography in an article called Ferric Gum process – a radically different
variation on Gum
This article was written by Michael Andrews who invented the Ferric Gum process in the 70’s
whilst trying to use photographic methods as a way for artists to make prints, simply as an
alternative to etching or lithography.

Ferric gum process – a radically different


variation on gum
Writer and photography / Michael Andrews

The ferric gum process is like gum bichromate in some respects but it is also radically different. Sensitiser is
brushed onto the paper, the paper is dried and exposed under a suitable image, and only at this point would
pigmented gum be brushed onto the exposed paper.

The ferric gum process is an unusual process for making photographic prints. It could easily have
been invented in the 19th century because everything required was available at the time. However
as far as I’m aware the process wasn’t invented until the 1970’s. You could say that it is a process
invented after its time!
Image above: Detail from a photogram made with skeleton leaves.
The process is like gum bichromate in some respects but it is also radically different. So let me give
you an overview by comparing and contrasting the two processes.
In gum bichromate the sensitiser is first mixed with pigmented gum arabic. Then the mixture is
brushed onto a paper support and dried. The coated paper is exposed under a suitable negative and
finally the print is floated in water to wash away any gum that was not hardened during the
exposure. It is important to note that the hardening begins at the surface of the gum and continues
down towards the paper. Consequently much of the hardened gum is detached from the paper until
the print is finally dried out. This is why a lot of fine detail is lost and indirectly why the prints are
tonally flat unless the process is repeated two or three times on the same print.
Now imagine that gum bichromate could be done differently.
Imagine the sensitiser being brushed onto the paper without any gum. Then the paper would be
dried and exposed under a suitable negative, rather like making a cyanotype. Only at this point
would pigmented gum be brushed onto the exposed paper. The sensitiser would rise up through the
gum, hardening it as it went. Finally any soft gum would be washed away. If the process could be
done like this it would be very different. Most importantly the gum would be hardened from the
paper upwards. The fine details would be retained and a wide tonal range could be achieved in a
single stage, provided the gum layer was thick enough.
Okay, so one cannot actually do gum bichromate this way! However the process that I have just
described is not a fantasy. It is pretty much how the process dealt with in this article works. The
only difference is that ferric chloride is used as a sensitiser and a positive image is required instead
of a negative one.
I can imagine skeptics thinking that this new process is impossible. Firstly, they might point out
that ferric chloride is not light-sensitive. True, it isn’t on its own but it is in a suitable organic
medium; it changes from bright yellow to the white ferrous salt. Back in 1970 any decent paper
provided a suitable medium but unfortunately today’s acid-free papers are problematic in this
respect. Secondly, skeptics might argue that the fine details and even the whole image would be
swept sideways as the pigmented gum was brushed across the exposed print. I thought this myself
until I discovered otherwise. Surprisingly the image is both detailed and sharp and the gum layer
can be very thick, allowing the print to have a good tonal range.
Sample showing the tones and textural details possible with the process
So this seems like a perfect process; better than gum bichromate and much simpler than making
Carbon Prints! Unfortunately there is a fly in the ointment. It is difficult to clear the excess iron
compounds from the finished print and over time these result in a rusty appearance. I was unable to
solve this problem in the 70’s and 80’s. But my knowledge of chemistry is patchy and it was
difficult for me to find things out then; the web didn’t exist! I did develop the process in various
ways, including making a version with shorter exposure times and negative images instead of
positive ones, but no version worked perfectly.
If you are not put of by this imperfection and even better if you see it as a challenging problem to be
solved then read on!
If I were writing in the 1970’s I would have given you a recipe at this point. Then you would be
able to make the process work first time. However that’s no good now because paper has changed
so much. Instead I will describe three separate experiments and if you can make them work you
will have no problem with the whole process; indeed you will have a better understanding than
following a recipe would allow.
1
Put a small amount of liquid gum arabic into a glass container and add some drops of strong ferric
chloride solution. The gum will instantly harden and it may even be possible to lift it out of the
container and bounce it on the floor! This will convince you that ferric chloride can harden gum
arabic.
2
Find some suitable paper* and make marks on it with ferric chloride solution. You can dilute the
ferric chloride solution to three times its volume or more if you like and it would be a good idea to
give your marks some fine detail and tonal variation. Dry the paper (a fan heater is good for this).
Now use a soft brush to mop pigmented gum arabic across the paper. Finally wash the paper in cold
water. This will convince you that ferric chloride can rise up from the paper and harden the gum
flowing over it. You will also see that fine details are retained and a good tonal range is possible.
3
Find some suitable paper* and brush some diluted ferric chloride solution over it and dry it. Shade
some areas of the paper and expose it to strong light. The bright yellow ferric chloride will turn
pale and eventually white. This will convince you that ferric chloride is light-sensitive in a suitable
medium, whatever the books say!

*Suitable paper
The problem with the second two experiments is to find a suitable paper. Ferric chloride only exists
in a somewhat acidic condition. If it is brushed onto today’s acid-free papers it will turn brown,
which means it has changed to ferric hydroxide. The ferric chloride must remain yellow on the
paper. I am not certain how to solve this problem. You could try Buxton Paper, which is designed
to work with iron salts. Alternatively you could try soaking ordinary paper in a weak solution of
acid to remove all the buffer from it. If nothing else works you could coat some glass with a thin
layer of gelatine and make it insoluble using dichromate. You might need to add hydrochloric acid
to the ferric chloride to ensure that it remains yellow. This won’t give excellent results but I know
from experience that it works.
I ceased working on this process a long time ago and I don’t intend to work on it again; my
motivations have changed. But I would be happy for people to use it and even happier if they
could develop it further. If anyone is interested I could write another article to describe why the
process works, or rather my best guesses about this. I could also describe how I tried to develop the
process further. If you would like to know more about the process please don’t hesitate to ask.

Reference:
A description of the process and its variations was published by The Royal Photograhic Society in
The Photographic Journal – February 1983. The article was called My way with gum.
This article was written by Michael Andrews who invented the Ferric Gum process in the 70’s
whilst trying to use photograghic methods as a way for artists to make prints, simply as an
alternative to etching or lithography.
***

j ames fisher says:


October 24, 2016 at 2:47 am

I have just posted to the yahoo group, carbon printing, the results of my experiments in non
dichromate gum printing using ultraviolet light-c to harden and render insoluble the tissue of a print.
With some further development this technique will allow 10 minute exposures and a completely
non toxic ingredient list of chemicals that could be ingested without harm. The print tissue is
composed of gelatin, glucose and a watercolor pigment. This tissue is exposed with uv-c, under a
uv- c transparent negative. An exposure of 10 minutes with two uv-c lamps producing 64 watt hours
of uv produces an image.

Further experiments with making images with ultraviolet light c and uv-b indicate both types of uv
can render a gelatin glucose mixture insoluble on exposure to uv without chromates. The uv-c light
at 254 nanometers wavelength is very harsh and produces images with very high contrast in 10
minutes exposure to 2- 34 watt uv-c bulbs. Uv-b wich is at a wavelength of around 290-310
nanometers produces much better images rivaling dichromate chemistry images. The main
difficulty in this type of photography is finding inexpensive uv transparent plastics for the vaccume
frame cover as well as the negative substrate. I am glad to announce that polyethylene is a good
vaccume frame cover as it readily transmits uv-b and uv-c readily with low loss. Kynar is a readily
available uv-b and c transparent plastic film good for negative substrate. Glass will not work on uv-
b or c as it has near 100% absorbtion. Fused quartz will work but the cost is very high. Kynar
plastic 5 mm thick is the absolute minimum thickness because the plastic is just too flexible. 8 to 10
mm would be much better. The plastic must be coated with a inkjet receptive coating to recieve the
inkjet printed negative. Art stores have the coatings available. Coating materials are composed of
polyvinal alcohol (pva) mixed with a small amount of colloidal silica and a wetting agent to reduce
surface tension. Pva is completely transparent to uv-c and uv-b as well. Homemade sheets of pva
might be used to print negatives on in a inkjet printer.

An update on the Ferric gum process


Writer / Michael Andrews

Michael Andrews describes two approaches to the ferric gum process: Frank Gorga’s and Peter Friedrichsen.

The Ferric gum process was invented in the mid 1970’s and first described in The Photographic
Journal in 1983 (ref. 1). It has been described more recently in two articles on the
AlternativePhotography website (ref. 2,3). Since then a handful of people have experimented with
this process and discussed their ideas and results on the AlternativePhotography Forum (ref. 4).
When the last two articles were written it was not certain that the process would actually work with
modern papers. Paper has changed considerably since the 1970’s. However it is now clear that the
process does still work. Here are two approaches to the process.
Frank Gorga’s approach

Ferric gum print by Frank Gorga


Frank used Fabriano Acquarello paper ‘straight out of the box’. Using this paper allowed him to use
the original process without modification.
http://www.gorga.org/blog
Frank prepared the sensitiser for this print by making up a 1 molar solution of ferric chloride. This
concentration is about 15% w/v.
He prepared the pigmented gum by taking 14 g Gum Arabic and adding enough water to make 40
ml of liquid gum. Then he added pigment from a (water colour) tube at the rate of 1 cm ‘bead’ to
each 5 ml of liquid gum.
He coated the paper with the sensitiser and air dried it. Then he exposed the paper under a positive
transparency in bright sunlight until the more exposed parts turned pale yellow. This took about an
hour.
Next he brushed the pigmented gum over the exposed paper. Finally he washed off the excess gum
with warm running water and dried the print.

Peter Friedrichsen’s approach


Peter used Arches Aquarelle Hot Press Watercolour paper ‘straight out of the box’. He added ferric
ammonium oxalate to the sensitiser to make it faster.
Peter prepared the sensitiser for this print using the following formula:
• 2 ml ferric chloride 42 degree baume
• 1 ml ferric ammonium oxalate 20% w/v
• 9 ml distilled water with 2 drops 99% isopropyl alcohol
This sensitiser would be brushed over the paper three times.

Ferric
gum print by Peter Friedrichsen
He prepared the pigmented gum by making a 30% w/v solution of Gum Arabic. Then he added
lampblack powder, judging the amount by eye.
He coated the paper with the sensitiser and dried it. Then he exposed the paper under a positive
transparency for 60 minutes, using a UVA lamp.
Finally he brushed the pigmented gum over the exposed paper and washed the print in a smooth
non-aerated cold water stream for about 6 minutes.

Other papers
It is clear that the process works well with the kinds of paper used by Frank and Peter but does it
work with other kinds of paper? The answer is yes but two problems may need to be tackled.
The first problem is that many papers now contain buffers. These spoil the sensitiser turning it from
its innate yellow colour to rusty brown. It is still possible to use these papers but the buffers must be
removed first. This can be achieved by bathing the paper in dilute hydrochloric acid (about 1%) and
then drying it.
The second problem is that the sensitiser may not actually be light sensitive when it is brushed on
some papers. This problem is easy to solve. Just add a small amount of an oxalate salt to the
sensitiser. I found that adding enough potassium oxalate to achieve a concentration of 1% w/v in the
sensitiser was sufficient.
Incidentally it is puzzling how such a small amount of oxalate can make a much larger amount of
ferric chloride light sensitive.
Iron stain
Ferric gum prints inevitably have some iron stain on them and this stain appears worse after a few
years as it turns to rust.
Removing iron stain is not difficult in itself. It can be removed with dilute acid or with a chelating
agent like EDTA. However Ferric gum images are actually held in place with iron. So removing all
the iron directly is not a good idea!
We have managed to make some progress with the stain removal. One approach is to fix the image
with a secondary mechanism before the stain is removed.

Cleared
print by Peter Friedrichsen
The best fixing agent we have found so far is glyoxal. The late Katherine Thayer described how
glyoxal fixes Gum Arabic in a post to the Alt-Photo list several years ago. Katherine also
participated in our experiments with the Ferric gum process.
Peter cleared the stain from some of his prints after fixing them with glyoxal.
This approach to stain removal is not completely reliable yet. The glyoxal may attack the image and
the cleared prints can only be washed for a limited period of time before they start to deteriorate.
Also on a personal note I cannot buy glyoxal in the UK because I am not a registered business!
Another approach to stain removal is to modify The Ferric gum process by substituting the gum
with gelatin. Once the gelatin has set thoroughly it is easy to remove all traces of stain. However the
process is tricky to handle with gelatin and the prints tend to be less sharp.
A third approach would be to refine the process so that less stain is produced in the first place. This
approach might be viable as I have some thirty year old prints which only have small amounts of
stain. Unfortunately I cannot recall what I did to make it so! Katherine thought we might be
worrying too much about the stain. So the prints she made may have had less stain than ours.
Exposure times
I was surprised to see how long the exposures took in the prints made by Frank and Peter; they took
much longer than mine in the 1970’s. Then it occurred to me that I had probably diluted the
sensitiser more and used more pigment in the gum. At the time I saw Ferric gum as a way for artists
to make prints rather than as a way to print photographs. So my requirements were different.
However it should be possible to reduce the exposure times by adding an oxalate salt to the
sensitiser. Frank has used no oxalate yet so it should be possible to cut his exposure times by half or
more.
There is a limit to how much oxalate we can be add because it makes the image physically weaker.
However if we could find a way to strengthen the image whilst the print is being washed it might
allow us to add even more oxalate and make the exposure times shorter.
If we could somehow pull the oxalate away from the iron as it enters the gum then the improvement
in the whole process would indeed be dramatic!

Tonal range
There was much debate about the tonal range of the process and whether it was better than with
Gum Bichromate prints or not. There was also a debate about the graininess that occurs in both
processes.

Tri-
colour Ferric gum print by Peter Friedrichsen
It seems obvious to me that the main factor controlling the tonal range is the thickness of the gum
image. I used to think that the images could be made much thicker but they stubbornly refuse to
oblige me!
However a wide tonal range can be achieved by multiple printing and tri-colour prints are also
possible. So let me end this article by showing the first Ferric gum tri-colour print ever made. The
second image shows the print with its iron stain removed.

References
1. The Photographic Journal – February 1983 in an article called My way with gum
2. AlternativePhotography in an article called Ferric gum process – a radically different
variation on Gum
3. AlternativePhotography in an article called The extraordinary mechanism underlying the
Ferric gum process
4. AltenativePhotography forum. Scroll to ‘all other processes’. Then open the ‘Ferric gum
process‘ thread.

Potrebbero piacerti anche