Yes, I am stating that it does not work, has no relation to anything, is
totally meaningless, except as an act of ritual purification and
self-mortification.
> It would be most interesting, to put this one to rest if in fact it does
> not work, have you verified this important piece of information with an
> independent authority.
Well, that's what I've been trying to do, "put it to rest." As for the
"independent authority," you remind me of the time about 20 years ago I
happened to keel over in a faint. Never happened before, never happened
since, but some months later I mentioned the incident to a doctor. His
only question was, did anybody else witness this "faint." True, I had
about 20 students and 3 colleagues present for the event, but I retain my
faith is knowing when I have fallen to the floor in an abject swoon.
Similarly, when I notice that pigment behaves very differently in the
presence of dichromate than it does without, when I have established that
potassium dichromate, ammonium dichromate and sodium dichromate all present
different degrees of stain, and that the proportion of gum to dichromate
and the percent solution of the dichromate are crucial variables in stain,
(the more dichromate the greater the stain), that different states of a
given paper are dramatically different in staining, that is, "virgin"
paper, never before wet, may stain not at all, wet once probably
stains a lot more, but after a coat of emulsion with dichromate, may
stain less, due to tanning effect of dichromate, etc. etc. etc., I feel I
can discard this canard without fear of meaningful contradiction.
However, I will cite Mike Ware (who explained to me about pigment "fog"
vs pigment stain & a few other fine points I probably couldn't repeat the
theory of but fully believe) as one confirming "independent authority" and
Terry King another, he being not just "independent," but uppity, and if
anyone will check through the steps I've outlined above they can be their
own "authority," as I am, with a crate full of the 21-steps in several
pretty colors in proof of each point stated...
> Also we need some good scientific research To find out what is really going on
> inside the emulsion and substrate preferably through the microscope,
> eyeballing is just not good enough.
In the phrase of my vanished youth, "lots of luck."
>
> Their are a number problems which we need to get to grips with,
> precisely what happens in the size layer, how can the substrate be
I think this has been covered in various conservator's literature (note that
I do not say the list archive, but probably should, since I'm older than
you are and have less time left to spend repeating myself), but I'll point
out that Puyo/Demachy/Seigel suggest for one coat gum on many papers
you'll do better with no extra size. Oh yeah, and Terry King also
mentioned recently, maybe 4 days ago, that a heavier gum takes the place of
size added to the paper -- 17 degrees baume was his number.
> stabilised from a dimensional point of view, what are the optimum gum to
> pigment ratios, this is where I came in so lets start by putting this one
> to bed first.
I don't think there is any such animal as "optimum gum-to-pigment ratio,"
as, at least in my tests, I find that each paper, pigment, gum, layer,
dilution, size combination performs differently. It's ineffable, is all......
On the other hand, it doesn't matter all that much. Once you find a paper
that works OK, and a nice gum, and a few civilized pigments, you have a
*tremendous* amount of latitude in length of soak. And if you listen to
Terry King, in method of development. I wouldn't resort to his
brutalities, but I've often gotten an overnight soak to clear up a
stubborn pigment stain. If too much pigment washes off, there's always
another coat. Etc. Etc. And since I feel I need my remaining unallocated
brain cells for general maintenance, I have vowed to let it go at that (a
vow I repeat every few months, but this time I really mean it).
Judy