Re: new subject line about ...... aaaggghhh!!!! ...."consensus'!
Judy,
Well, for sure I figured you were right.
But it sure turns me on when you talk that gum pigment test trash!
Sandy
At 2:41 AM -0400 5/7/08, Judy Seigel wrote:
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.
|