Jeff Sully (Jsully@drycreekvineyard.com)
Wed, 03 Mar 1999 09:25:31 -0800
Thanks for putting pomposity in perspective. We need more people like
you on the list.
Jeff Sully
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rae Adams [SMTP:rae.adams@gtri.gatech.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 8:06 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: LONG Rebuttal for Mae
>
> In a reply to your post, I wrote:
>
> >>>I do believe that a careful worker rigorously testing an emulsion
> and
> >>>working out a formula and procedures can replicate an emulsion. Jim
> >>>Browning obviously does, and he does a good job of it. The problem
> as I
> >see
> >>>it lies in assuming that this "perfected" formula will work
> precisely the
> >>>same in the hands of another worker. If I follow your formula and
> >>>procedures, they may well work; but they may not meet my needs, and
> they
> >>>may not work well.
> >
> >
> >First of all, please read what I said. I mentioned Jim Brownings
> formula.
> >It can be done.
>
> As far as my familiarity with Jim Browning's formula, please see the
> comments later in this posting.
>
> What my post reply was talking about was the creation of
> >color emulsions. I specifically mentioned color emulsions, as that is
> what
> >the original post asked about, in part. Impossible for most of us -
> heck,
> >there is not a single person on this list that could create a
> successful
> >color film that is consistent from batch to batch, that reproduces
> colors
> >accurately or is the least bit sharp. Me included, and this is not a
> slam
> >against anyone. I can say the same thing about creating a jet
> airplane or a
> >computer microprocessor.
>
> Not even the film companies produce consistent emulsions from batch to
> batch, especially color; nor do they reproduce colors accurately (all
> have
> some biases, and that's the way photographers want them or there
> wouldn't
> be a number of emulsions with different characteristics on the
> market).
> Inconsistency from batch to batch is why most people test new emulsion
> batches before they use the film. At least I do. All of my friends and
> acquaintances who are decent photographers seem to test new emulsion
> batches also.
>
> If the film companies don't produce absolutely consistent results from
> batch to batch from the same formulas and under strict working
> conditions
> (although they do manage, for the most part, to maintain consistently
> within certain ranges), then how can someone working on a small scale
> achieve consistency with other peoples' formulas? That was my whole
> point
> in mentioning why even the "big guys" have their days (or in some
> cases,
> months and years).
>
> In replying to the postings of people asking for formulas, I
> especially
> wanted to point out that someone else's formulas and procedures are
> not the
> end of the process; on the contrary, they are the beginning. I would
> liken
> the published formulas and the theory behind them to the books of
> exercises--scales, student pieces, and compositional theory--that a
> beginning musician learns. Once that musician has mastered the basics,
> then
> he/she may well go on to compose musical pieces or, on the other hand,
> concentrate on nuances of performing other people's work, much the
> same way
> as a student of emulsions will give his/her own interpretation to
> published
> formulas or go on to create his/her own formulas. (By the way, I'm
> currently working on Bach's Goldberg Variations, so I do have some
> experience in this area.) You mentioned in this post about the
> commercial
> film companies having a difficult time because they didn't have all
> the
> information from the German film companies. I've read most of the
> reports
> that interested me (I skipped some of the stuff on diazo--not my
> cuppa);
> and in the several dozen reports I read (and I mean several dozen
> literally), the formulas and procedures are at least as detailed as
> the
> formulas one comes across in the emulsion literature (in many cases,
> far
> more detailed). The point being that there is no way to write down a
> formula in such detail that it can account for all the variables of
> workers' methods, materials, environments, and needs. Even though the
> chemists after WWII didn't have the "complete" formulas, as you
> assert,
> surely the people replicating the Brilliant paper had access to such
> information (that was my understanding from the people I talked to).
> Yet,
> they also had years of work ahead.
>
> It was also my point in commenting on some of the commercial work (re:
> the
> German film formulas and the Allied film companies) that a person's
> developing a working emulsion either based on a published formula or
> on
> his/her reading is not an easy task, but that it is also not
> impossible to
> fabricate many emulsions, as long as the emulsion worker educates
> him/herself so that when things go wrong or are inconsistent he/she
> will at
> least have some idea of how to begin to test and fix the problem. As
> you
> noted, the industrial emulsion chemists eventually figured it out. To
> quote
> Alexander Pope, "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or
> taste not the Pierian spring."
>
> And to cite a more recent success, Jim Browning started from ground
> zero.
> He wasn't born full grown like Athena from the head of Zeus.
>
> There are indeed some emulsions that a person without sophisticated
> equipment cannot hope to replicate. However, anyone who has looked at
> some
> of the tremendously exciting (and truly great work) done by
> photographers
> and reserchers in the 19th and early part of the 20s century can see
> for
> him/herself what is possible. Many of us would consider the way they
> worked
> as "primitive"--our most outstanding emulsion scientists/artists in
> that
> period worked with very limited theoretical knowledge in comparison
> with
> what we have now and with very simple laboratory equipment. What they
> were
> capable of producing, however, was far from primitive. What did they
> do?
> Their homework.
>
> If more people had continued working outside of the industrial
> envirnoment,
> we would perhaps have a larger (and more current) body of practical
> applications of the theoretical canon on which to draw--perhaps
> something
> analogous to the interesting work one sees presented by the persons
> contributing to this list. For example, look at the recent approaches
> by
> several people on this list active in platinum work. By mentioning
> this, I
> do not mean to slight others who are contributing just as richly in
> other
> areas, such as gum and carbon. This is just one example.
>
> I believe it is one of the tragedies of photography that independent
> research on silver-gelatin emulsions on a nonindustrial scale did not
> continue. People who are interested in working with emulsions on this
> type
> of scale face a number of difficulties, not only in regard to the lack
> of
> open information on emulsion fabrication (rightly so, from the
> industrial
> point of view--no company wants to give away its secrets) but also
> from the
> lack of mentors who can pass on their knowledge to a new generation.
> We no
> longer have the Abneys, Wilsons, Eders, Walls, Valentas, Vogels, etc.
> as
> resources, people who freely shared their results, and many of the
> texts
> and articles on their important contributions to emulsion fabrication
> are
> difficult to impossible to find. I am heartened somewhat by the recent
> interest in collodion work but on the other hand am dismayed that
> research
> is not being done to apply some of the theory and practical techniques
> we
> have learned with gelatin emulsions to the body of early collodion
> literature, for example, developing formulas and procedures for a
> panchromatic dry-plate collodian emulsion. As an example of some of
> the
> fine work being carried out and disseminated in areas of alt
> processes, see
> Judy Seigel's periodical. I only wish that emulsion enthusiasts had a
> similar vehicle. My purpose in addressing the list was to encourage
> people
> interested in emulsions while at the same time giving them some idea
> of the
> task they faced and some resources that I have found useful. I feared
> that
> someone trying an emulsion (or several emulsions) that ended in
> disaster
> would become discouraged. I hoped to reach out to such workers and let
> them
> know that those sorts of problems can be dealt with in a rational way
> (i.e., a thorough study of the field). Emulsions are not "cookie
> cutter"
> perfect. However, we have a tremendous body of industrial theory and
> research on which to draw and that could be applied for small-scale
> fabrications. Yet, without mentors and ready access to information, we
> "draw" slowly.
>
> I hope that those people on the list who are interested in pursuing
> the
> study of emulsions will persist in spite of the difficulties. As far
> as
> what is and is not possible, I am ever amazed at the ingenuity (and
> persistence) of artists.
>
> Again I say, creating color emulsions is beyond
> >the skills of most people. The original post also asked about
> infrared
> >formulas. Equally difficult because of the strict requirements for
> this
> >type of material.
>
> An infrared emulsion is that difficult? Abney did it in 1880, with
> collodion no less. This is the sort of loss of knowledge that I am
> talking
> about. We keep reinventing the wet plate.
> >
> >Jim Browning's formula does work in the hands of a careful worker.
> Mr.
> >Browning spelled out the procedure, and from the copy I have, it's
> not too
> >difficult. He was very through in his explanation. I suggest you
> read the
> >information - it is all basic stuff and because it is not a
> multi-layer
> >material like color materials are, it is easily reproducible.
>
> You want me to do what? Read Jim Browning's materials? Oh my. Oh dear.
> Actually Jim Browning's formula is called the Browning/Adams matrix
> film.
> I'm the Adams portion of that. So I'm aware it works. I spent a big
> chunk
> of my life working on that emulsion with Jim, and I'm not so senile
> that I
> don't remember it. I suggest that YOU go back and reread it. The name
> Rae
> Adams is not all that common for a woman. Surely you made the
> connection?
>
> Sometimes I wonder why I even get up in the morning.
> >>
> >You quote E. J. Well, and it is true. But I doubt he was specifically
> >referring to the average worker.
>
> Yes Wall was. It's a beginning textbook. It was one of the first
> things I
> read (and reread). But don't take my word for it. Read the book
> yourself.
> It is, after all, the standard textbook in the field. After reading
> Wall, I
> went back and started with the collodion literature about 1860 and
> worked
> forward.
>
> I assume that if complex emulsion creation
> >is something some novice wants to attempt, with no equipment, no
> knowledge
> >in what is required, no chemistry skills, etc., he is in for a tough
> time
> >of it. For the careful worker, however... it is not a difficult task
> to
> >accomplish the production of simple emulsions. I have personally seen
> the
> >development labs in Rochester where some very complex emulsions are
> made,
> >and it is costly to do, takes experience, extreme monitoring and a
> whole
> >lot of effort and smarts from a whole lot of clever people to create
> a new
> >test emulsion.
>
> Well, Eder created a t-grain emulsion around the turn of the century
> (the
> one at 1900, not the one we're in now). He didn't call it that, but
> that is
> what it is. The old guy was a pretty good tinkerer. The formula and
> others
> based on it were published in a number of periodicals, with good
> reason. Of
> course, he had far more variation in the crystal structures than
> modern
> t-grain films. In order to achieve the homogeneous nature of modern
> t-grain
> emulsions, it does take money and a sophisticated laboratory. But
> Eder's
> emulsion is really something. Imagine that--being able to make your
> own
> t-grain film. Makes me come all out in goosebumps.
>
> >So, Rae... you wanted me to issue a rebuttal, there it is. I am not
> some
> >List Member speaking out of a hole in his you know what... I have
> knowledge
> >about many of these topics. When I speak it is from a knowledge base.
> >Either from hands on experience, reading my collections or talking
> with
> >people who were around when things were a bit different. I consider
> myself
> >an Expert and I can speak with plenty to back myself up.
>
> I will certainly take your word for the rest of your knowledge and
> never
> contemplated for a minute that you were "speaking out of a hole in his
> you
> know what," although I'm not sure I know what a "you know what"
> is--nevertheless, whatever it is, I didn't contemplate it, nor do I
> understand how someone could speak out of it (whatever it is). On the
> contrary, though, regading your knowledge base of the Browning/Adams
> matrix
> formula AND process, as far as I'm concerned, you, sir, are no Rae
> Adams.
>
> In conclusion, I hope that more people will take up the studies of
> emulsions, and I hope that some energetic person (or persons) younger
> and
> healthier than I am will assume the task of disseminating information.
> As
> digital imaging gradually assumes a larger and larger portion of the
> technological resources of what were film companies (for example,
> Kodak has
> publicly stated that it considers itself an imaging company at this
> point)
> and some traditional processes, such as dye transfer, are abandoned by
> the
> large commercial firms, I believe that a well trained cadre of
> small-scale
> emulsion workers can make valuable contributions to fabricating custom
> emulsions to meet the esoteric needs of traditional gelatin-silver
> workers
> and also alternative process workers.
>
> I also would hope that any further discussions will take place off
> list in
> order to keep the volume of mail down. Although I enjoy the exchange
> of
> ideas, I don't believe that the level of interest at present warrants
> further lengthy postings on list. I am a firm believer that, at some
> point,the more you run over a dead cat, the bigger and flatter it
> gets.
>
> Rae Adams
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:54