Lousy film washers too - was Re: Gum prints with an enlarger (UV loss)
Sam Wang (stmwang@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Wed, 17 Jan 1996 18:03:53 -0500
Bob Schramm on Tue, 16 Jan 1996 said:
>
>Considering how much a Gravity Works print frame costs, you would think
>it would be better engineered. I also own one of the things and dislike
>it for all the reasons mentioned. i.e. plastics bends, scratches and I
>hate those rubber tube. Finallt threw it under a bench in the darkroom
>and went back to using some refurbished antique frames and a home made
>frame I made before I spent all that money on a GW frame. I must remind
>myself of the fable about the dog with a bone in its mouth that saw
>its reflection in the water every once in a while. Also, just because
>its expensive doesn't mean it's therefore, any good.
To which I would add that just because it has a fancy name doesn't make it
good either. Case in point is the Gravity Works film washer, the one that
flushes when full: if you measure the amount of time the *top part* of film
is submerged, you'd see that it barely gets wet.
Sam Wang
stmwang@hubcap.clemson.edu