>Happy New Year on all sides of the Atlantic,
>
>Judy
Quite frankly Judy Seigel I have no need of your forgiveness,but if you are
going to
quote me, would you have the good manners to do so correctly,after all you are
quick enough to pick a typo error and make a meal out of it [gum stip],
I did not come onto the net and and hopefully take part in the activities
of this list,to become the centre piece in some punch and judy show,what I
actually wrote in my article when describing an experimental gloy gum
soluble size,direct carbon processes was this,The image quality is totally
different to the normal soft ,ethereal tonal values associated with the
classic gum process,where a number of coatings are required to obtain a
full tonal range. In hindsight what I should have said was :-
[are *normally* required to obtain a full tonal range].However nowhere in
the article did I describe Gum Bichromate as a process unable to do fine
detail, whatever that may mean!Indeed in my book Creative Sunprinting
published by Focal Press 1980,I stated quite the reverse.
Incidentally the Judy Seigel critique is printed in the current issue of
APR4 my full reply is to be printed in the Spring edition APR5.
Re- the frames Thank you J.S. most kind
happy new year to all
pete.