Re: The Silverprint Catalog
Peter charles fredrick (pete@fotem.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 4 Jan 1996 15:12:04 +0100
>On Thu, 4 Jan 1996, Peter charles fredrick quoted me in part, as follows:
>
>> >, 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
Now is the time to eat humble pie ! I must thank both Keith Schreiber and Peter
Marshell for pointing out the error of my ways,what I said was inexcusable,
it was just that the form of words were almost the same as used in the
critique in APR,and with the letters PF being present I jumped completely
to the wrong conclusion ,a stupid aberration on my part.
Judy,I must ask you to accept my unqualified apology for my bad manners on
this occasion, and sincerely thank you, for your generous response.I will
gladly accept your olive branch, and plant it in my garden where I hope it
will grow,strong, tall, and fruitful.As far as I'm concerned last year did
not happen,I was never a great one for history anyway.
We are both how shall I put it ? lets say forthright in our Beliefs
[others might not be so polite, particular when refering to myself] so I
think it inevitable that from time to time we will clash, but let us have
our disagreements as friends in mutual professional respect for each
other.Incidentally I also share your love of the truth.
pete