Famous paper tests.

Steve Avery ((no email))
Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:13:41 +1100

Hi all,
Please note that occassionally, for no fathomable reason, the
listproc bounces messages (they come to me). I report some of them
(depending on content and how bogged down I am). I didn't write them!
Also note that I include the email address of the original author if you
wish to email them direct.

cheers
-steve

------- Forwarded Message

Date: 22 Feb 96 04:13:46 EST
From: TERRY KING <101522.2625@compuserve.com>
To: Multiple Recipients <alt-photo-process@vast.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Famous paper tests.

Keith

Thanks for you very helpful comments on my original questions on your tests on
how various papers react to platinum.

Why infamous ? I would have thought that they provided a sound basis for a very
worthwhile discussion.

Why not clear in EDTA?

Variations in the proportions of platinum and palladium in the sensitiser can
markedly affect the density of the final print as can the amount of size applied
to paper.

The implication of the last point is that one could spend one's whole life
making tests instead of making pictures.

Did your tests include Waterford and Fabriano. Large Waterford produces stunning
results. I have posted details of the distributors in the US.

With some of my students on Tuesday we got into a discusssion of the philosophy
behind image making while examining 'On Photography'. One concept that we bore
very much in mind was Occam's razor. An idea which many people doing tests fail
to take into account. As you say conditions can vary so much that very little is
absolute.

Terry

------- End of Forwarded Message