> >I recently read about an accelerated aging test you can do at home alone.
> I'll see if I can find the info<
Peter replied,
> Most interesting
Harriet replied, "Is this also known as watching network TV?"
Which gives me the opportunity to say I wouldn't know, since I do not
watch TV of any kind, on or off a network, & to boast even further that
when visiting children left the TV on I couldn't decide how to turn it off
& had to call a neighbor......
However, in the question of updigging this item of information, there is
no question about the superiority of digital media: The mention was in a
newsletter from the materials committee of National Artists Equity
Association, of which I have some 12 back issues, and I have not (yet)
relocated it. The urge to run a "find" utility was overwhelming. If all
else fails, I'll write the editor. Meanwhile, for those who might wish to
subscribe, the 8-page newsletter, "Pen, Pencil, & Paint," is $12 for one
year (4 issues), check to National Artists Equity Association, PO Box
26086, Washington DC, 20038.
The contents are a potpourri of art materials information -- descriptions
of different pigments, brushes, health & safety issues, histories of
artists material companies, etc. I've found it very interesting reading.
(Back issues are $2 each.) I think it also has the virtue of speaking for
a constituency, in labeling & archival questions, among other artists'
consumer issues, apparently, at least to some extent, listened to by the
providers.
As for the staining questions at hand, this just in from tonight's fortune
cookie:
"You will finally solve a difficult problem that will mean much to you."
But this was husband's fortune cooking which I stole, so it may not apply.
Meanwhile, a couple of questions to Peter:
You said you mixed your colloids "to standard proportions," with a
saturated solution of am di. What are your "standard proportions"?
My experience is that changes in saturation of dichromate, and ratio of
dichromate to colloid, change degree of staining, & am not sure anyway
what is "standard."
You note that without pigment you got up to 15 steps of tone, the
assumption being that added pigment would reduce number of steps. In my
experience the addition of a *lot* of pigment cuts down number of steps a
lot. Presumably the pigment blocks up the whole low end, making it the same.
I wonder also about stain with different light sources, if they will also
follow the rules you discovered, and if there's a correlation between
stain without pigment and stain with, which there may not be.... In fact
each *pigment* could, as you put it re synetape, have a life of its own.
I'm not sure what use all this is, *unless* it turns out that the stain
in transformed form is not anti-archival & thus could be used as tone
builder... which would be nice on several levels, including no rude
surprises after clearing because maybe one would only clear to taste..
And speaking of clearing, among the several methods you tried, there was
no hypoclearing agent or sodium sulfite, as mentioned in these pages
last year. One or the other might be a first choice, because
1. The potassium alum took two hours & by reputation could degrade color
2. the sodium metabisulfite makes you (or anyway me) choke
3. Some people would be antsy handling (or even getting) sulfuric acid.
(And it isn't clear to me that it has any advantage except in gross
over-exposure.)
So if you'll tell my what your proportions were, somewhere along the line
I'll try the two other clearing baths....
Then you say the "tonal variation [of different clearing] could go a long
way to explaining the apparent fickleness of the processes." You're
talking about .1 density as "explanation" for fickleness? Aside from not
getting the "explanation," I myself would not measure .1 density when I
talk fickle, rather reserving the term (which I rarely apply, assuming
instead a sloppy or careless mistake on my part) for a different order of
magnitude.
One final point: For those who don't want to punch a hole in their
samples, another comparison method is to punch holes in two white cards
and run one along the sample and the other along the grey scale next to
it. You compare the areas exposed by the holes side by side. Not quite as
easy to read perhaps as through-the-sample, but nearly....
Cheers,
Judy