Jeffrey D. Mathias (jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 29 May 1999 08:10:03 -0400
Keith Schreiber wrote:
>
> Well Jeff, I have seen good prints on Palladio paper and I've even made a
> few myself. Several years ago a friend gave me a part of a package of
> Palladio to try out. It was already cut into 5x6 inch pieces so I printed up
> a small edition of a single 4x5 negative. I thought it was pretty good. I
> may still have one or 2. If I find 'em I'll send you one. I hope you won't
> be too hard on me. :-}
I would certainly appreciate seeing a "good" print of yours on
Palladio. I am open to changing my opinion on the stuff. But as I
said, SHOW ME THE PRINTS. I've even seen some of the demo work from
Palladio representatives which, to say the least, gave a bad impression.
You also bring up an excellent point of the use of abbreviations and
symbols. I have no idea what is meant by "Pl" (other than guessing by
the context). Anyone in the world can pick up a periodic table and find
the "Pt" means platinum. There's a P, Pd, Pt, Pb, Po, Pr, Pm, Pa, and
Pu (I guess this one stinks, HA).
It certainly makes sense that any article or description of photographic
processes, if and when using abbreviations or symbols, should use the
standard chemical symbols. This has been the standard nomenclature used
throughout the world. This seems to be the only way one can fully
understand an article on chemical processes.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:35