dy, if you missed the link here is the picture of the Gamblin PVA|
> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:54:35 -0400
> From: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Miracle size for gum
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sometimes I have trouble staying out of an argument, because who doesn't
> love a good argument? Research shows, moreover, that an argument about gum
> firms the skin and makes the hormones flow, while discouraging outsiders
> from attempts to muscle in on the process. But the gum argument (or
> "discussion") I'm staying out of now is because I don't know what the hell
> folks are talking about & decline to expose my ignorance.
> I feel safer with the term "miracle size for gum," which seems relatively
> clear -- a one-coat gum size that's as good as the traditional gelatin
> size plus hardener that takes forever & 2 days? Can this be?
> In fact I may have some of that miracle on hand. Alas, after too long on
> a ladder finding things I have no idea what I bought them for, I found
> Talas PVA adhesive, which I will test, but doubt is the right stuff.
> Meanwhile, in case not everybody has peeled off from this long intro, I
> have two questions:
> 1. There's a Utrecht art supply store in the vicinity, alleged to have
> Gamblin PVA size. But with too many mystery ingredients already on hand, I
> check that this IS the "miracle size" under discussion.... Also, that the
> current dilution of choice is 1 part "size" to 2 parts water, or
> thereabouts ?
> 2. Now a wild shot: I also found a jar of something labelled RHOPLEX "for
> industrial use only," with MANY warnings on the label: "not for use in
> Household area", "CAUTION!", "Keep out of reach of children," "contact may
> cause eye or skin irritation," and so forth. It also says "Rohm and Haas,
> Philadelphia." There's probably a website, which might or might not have
> further info. But in case anyone reading this knows what the stuff is for,
> I 'd trust their info more...
> Finally, a note of gum lore a propos of today's discussion: The old books
> and articles about gum, until maybe the 1970s when "breaking the rules"
> began to catch on and discussion was "modernized," called the final wash
> of a print to remove dichromate stain, and/or the underlying dichromate
> image, "fixing."
> Partly out of habit, I suppose, because silver prints had to be fixed, but
> some of it apparently in the belief that dichromate left would be harmful.
> Other authors however, advocated leaving that dichromate image under the
> pigment as a way of strengthening contrast.
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.