> >, register frames (a sensible-looking system
> designed by Peter Fredrick for negs up to 8x10"),
> ."
> >(and I will never forgive PF's inexcusable, heinous description of gum
> >bichromate as . unable to do
> >fine detail)
And then he addressed me (and of course the list) as follows:
> 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
Sigh. I don't know whether to laugh or cry on this one. Did anyone
else take that "PF" to mean Peter Fredrick? Good golly, Miss Molly! The
sentence read (after lavish praise for the wonders of the Silverprint
catalog):
"Photographer's Formulary descriptions are not in this league (and I will
never forgive PF's inexcusable, heinous description of gum bichromate as
unable to do fine detail). . . ."
To mean Peter Fredrick at that point would have been a non sequitur, a sin
nearly as bad as misquoting (which I would never, EVER do -- at least not
when so easily discovered).
Peter, I am awfully sorry about this misunderstanding. I *intended* my
mention of your register frame as an olive branch (silly me?). Needless to
say, I reserve the right to disagree with you about the nature of gum
printing (and am tying myself in knots trying to prove same, though until
I succeed, how about single coat gums by Demachy and Kuhn as proof?).
Meanwhile, could we pretend the last month never happened?
Except, FYI, here's the section of the Photographer's Formulary catalog I was
responding to:
...Gum Printing is unique among all the printing processes. It is
distinguished by unlimited flexibility. The printer has complete control
and may produce prints of any color or contrast. These prints are
characterized by a long, open scale that is soft and romantic, but fine
detail is not possible ..... [page 25, 1993 catalog]
I guess I should have protested that "unlimited flexibility" while I was
at it. Just goes to show, you can't catch them all.....
Is everybody else having a wonderful 1996, too?
Judy