new subject line about ...... aaaggghhh!!!! ...."consensus'!

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Sandy King wrote:

> Ahhhhh, the old gum pigment test. Now that bring back a lot of memories from 
> the past.
>
> Just wondering, was there ever a consensus as to whether it actually works or 
> not?
Oh Sandy, you're just saying that to torture me.  How could it possibly 
"work"? -- you know better than that !!!

As for "consensus," puleeze !!! Consensus in the time of Galileo was that 
the sun revolved around the earth; in the time of the pilgrims, that girls 
& women were witches and had intercourse with the devil (hmmmmm); then 
there was the "consensus" that if women wore "bloomers" it would interfere 
with fertility -- also, if memory serves -- that the earth was flat.

In fact the whole thing that drove me to distraction, was EXACTLY the 
"consensus" among the contemporary books that cut & pasted that nonsense 
from each other OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT TESTING IT !!!!!....  Including the 
consensus on this list -- from people who dutifully went through the 
entire rigamarole, but never "tested" it against anything, just accepted 
the "findings."  (Great science !)

grrrr...

I note, BTW, that my "test" was simplicity itself, but I hope you're happy 
now that I've given you the satisfaction of jumping up & down.... 
Meanwhile, however, um.... did you READ my critique in P-F # 9? 
"Engineering Gum Bichromate," beginning page 48. If not, go stand in the 
corner... If you're still trying to torture me, do the tests on page 49... 
ESPECIALLY "C."  (And for extra credit, send me the strip!)

Test A shows that the more dichromate, the more stain, nothing to do with 
the amount of pigment. Test B shows a related effect with a different 
color, & Test C shows that a strip exposed WITH the dichromate makes a 
very nice scale and clears well, while the identical (IDENTICAL!) material 
WITHOUT THE DICHROMATE simply fogs, that is, doesn't clear at all. (As I 
said in the caption, "Need I say more?")

I'll add, by the way, that another of Paul Anderson's claims (read "wildly 
mistaken surmises" also IIRC copied freely & thoughtlessly) is even easier 
to debunk. For some reason he decided that the more pigment you had, the 
more tones you could get, tho the exact opposite is true:  As I showed in 
an earlier P-F, the greater density blocks up the shadows, so you get 
***fewer*** steps.

But maybe you're being nice ?  You just want to get folks to say "Judy was 
right" ???

Well, she was... Thanks !!!

Judy

> > At 3:20 PM -0400 5/3/08, Judy Seigel wrote:
> >
> > PS. The "literature" gives a fair sampling of the level of mainstream 
> > publishers' books on "alt", as reviewed in various Post-Factory's -- for 
> > instance Robert Hirsch's chapter on alternative processes has some 
> > world-class idiocies, not from actual testing or printing, but from mental 
> > telepathy while chewing on a color chart.  Ditto for John Schaefer's "Ansel 
> > Adams Guide II" -- IMAGINE: in the name of Ansel Adams (tho maybe it serves 
> > him right?) as reviewed in an early P-F by John Rudiak & myself.... And 
> > those are just the two that leap to mind.  (Something tells me I may have 
> > mentioned the "gum-pigment ratio test" -- religiously cut and pasted right 
> > down the line -- already.)
> >
> > PS.  Chris, who is  Sarah Vowell?
> >
> > J.