U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | [point of the point] was Re: archivalness of gum

[point of the point] was Re: archivalness of gum

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Katharine Thayer wrote:

Hue names are useless for gum printing, because they tell you nothing about the pigments involved; if you don't know and understand the pigments you're using, you're losing out on one of the crucial control variables of gum printing in my experience. So discussing colors in terms of hue names just confuses and misleads people, and I can't see any point in it.
Katharine, you're doing it again... taking charge of list content. That YOU "can't see any point in it" does NOT render a discussion illegitimate. About 3/4 of all list discussion has "no point" to some of us (including yours, I might add, even conceivably mine), but there was in fact some history, meaning, and intention attached to those comments... to at least two of us, probably more, even lacking your seal of approval.

Nor is it written that anything not "useful for gum printing" is verboten on the list.

"Confuses and misleads people"? Not at all, tho it apparently takes them into other territory than Katharine allows... but it seems to me if folks have the wit to get here, they're adults, and have the wit to weigh information for themselves.

Statements may get corrected, or arguments ensue, which can be empty posturing or richly informative. But the criterion is still not whether Katharine sees the point. We did.


point is simply I was concurring with Judy that indigo is nowadays a
hue/tone name. As a mix, each manufacturer is free to use different pigments
in different proportions. One needs to check the content.

As to listing pigment by pigment numbers, that is always true in another
context. But here we are not talking about USING INDIGO PIGMENT. In fact,
the context is the opposite. We are talking about indigo not being a pigment
in manufactured watercolors but a hue/tone name.