Peter
> ."
> >(and I will never forgive PF's inexcusable, heinous description of gum
> >bichromate as . unable
to do
> >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.
>
>
Judy wrote:
< 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). >
Why you should take PF as a reference to yourself I am unable to imagine. I
took the obvious reference from the context (which you deleted!) to be to
Photographer's Formulary.
Peter Marshall
petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk