Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Wed, 19 May 1999 09:27:03 -0700
At 05:17 AM 5/19/99 -0700, you wrote:
>--- Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> None of this seems very alt proc to me.
>> ----
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles,Ca.
>> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>>
>Richard -
>I made that point - with apologies - in my original
>note when I started this thread and asked people to
>answer directly. At least they (*hopefully*) follow
>directions in the darkroom! However, I've learned a
>lot and am very appreciative!!!! Thanks to all!
>Andy
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
>
This wan't meant to be critical of the thread or of anyone else. I should
have worded it differently. I was simply wondering out loud if _my_
contribution was on topic.
I get shocked occasionally by the realization that some of the sources
for photographic formulas which I tend to think of as commonly available
have become rare antique books.
I am going to try to get a copy of the Nelson patent for his gold toner.
I should be able to at the LA public library, which has a pretty complete
patent department. The instructions for both the Kodak and Ansco version
are worded virtually identically, I wonder if it originates in the patent
itself and whether there is anything there that got left out. I find this
last is often the case with Kodak instructions which are based on their
research papers. The original papers often explain some puzzling
instructions. It gets worse when the original instructions are abreviated
in later publications or when they are reprinted in collections of formulae.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:34