OUCH ! !
''Hark, the merry bells are ringing.
La de dah de dah de
dah dah ,dah.''
Happies and Hugs to All.
John - Photographist - London - UK.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:42 AM
Subject: [point of the point] was Re: archivalness of gum
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Katharine Thayer
>> 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
>> 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
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
> "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
>>> hue/tone name. As a mix, each manufacturer is free to
>>> in different
proportions. One needs to check the content.
to listing pigment by pigment numbers, that is always true in
>>> 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
manufactured watercolors but a hue/tone name.