Adam Kimball (akimball@finebrand.com)
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 23:07:18 -0800
The biggest consideration, Liam, is that Ware's process just isn't known.
Sure, we have the articles he published, but that isn't the whole story. John
Rudiak helped a lot by making his interpretation of the New Chrysotype - but it
is simply different from Ware's process. Ware's process relies on the ammonium
salt of gold, Rudiak's interpretation lacks this. And other differences
abound, I am certain of that.
So, as I've mentioned to people off list - if you want my advice, wait a few
years for Mike to publish something. This process, as I have tried it, is
insanely unfriendly. And I have the gold plated beakers to prove it too!
-Adam
Liam Lawless wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Many thanks for the advice, and I shall get in touch with Terry at some
> stage. I understand that Mike Ware's process gives the best results, but I
> think I'm right in saying it uses 60-odd times more gold than what Bob
> describes, and for me that's an important consideration.
>
> Liam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:49