U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: gum "curves"

Re: gum "curves"

On Oct 27, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Camden Hardy wrote:


I think there's some misconception at work here; I have an intensely
classical mindset, and my objection isn't that the curves thing is
too predictable or not romantic enough; it's that as far as I can
see, it's not very predictable or repeatable for gum. Otherwise why
would you have people using PDN and still adjusting their development
or exposures to conditions, and saying things like "my method is
predictable until it's not predictable"  which as far as I can see is
exactly the situation we're all in, curves or no curves.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you even bother to read my posts to this
list any more.
Well, no, I don't, as a matter of fact. I just came across this this morning, looking for the quote that David referred to, which I haven't found yet. But you're right, I don't read your posts as a rule any more, sorry. You're on a short list of three or four people whose posts go automatically into my junk mail folder. Some people, like Terry King, were in that group because I found their posts not very useful or interesting and a waste of time to read; some, because they seem almost wilfully and perversely determined to misunderstand me, and it's useless to continue to try to clarify one's position to one who is just looking to argue with one no matter what; others, because they have insulted me and I don't care to read posts that might contain personal insults. I don't need the aggravation. You got yourself into this group with your nasty comment about my sense of humor. I don't like personal insults, don't think they have a place in a professional forum, and won't continue to read the posts of people who indulge in personal insults. So there you are. If you want me to read your posts, then you need to couch them in a more respectful tone.

But since I opened this one, I'll make a couple of brief comments, below:

Just the other day I pointed out that there's a serious flaw going on in
your argument here. When used correctly, PDN (and curves in general)
eliminate any and all guesswork. Anyone who tells you that their PDN
curves are unpredictable (no matter what the process) is not using the
system correctly.
Well, I won't name the names of the people who have said this, but I think you might be surprised to find who you're saying this about. You can find them in the archives, if you care to look, and I'll leave your comment to stand on its own.

But is it really necessary to bash the method that you don't use?
I'm not bashing any method; I've always said that people should use whatever works for them. What I'm objecting to (if you call this bashing, you're going to have a hard time getting along here) is the idea that curves will provide some sort of magic shortcut around learning how to print gum.