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
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 !)
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
But maybe you're being nice ? You just want to get folks to say "Judy was
Well, she was... Thanks !!!
> > 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.