Jeffrey D. Mathias (jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:59:10 -0400
Judy Seigel wrote:
> ...
> 1. Why do you make your own ferric oxalate?
I made the batch of ferric oxalate to verify Vicente's procedure. He
had asked if I would include his procedure in my Guide, and I said that
if his FO powder worked as good or better than the one I was using and I
could make as good a powder myself using his procedure, I would. That's
the short version of the story.
I also feel, as does Vicente, that the FO powder stores better and gives
the photographer more flexibility in mixing the sensitizing solution. I
also felt that if for some reason the commercial sources were not
available or difficult to get, it would be advantageous to have a low
cost production alternative.
Another reason is that I am now exploring the sensitizer solution to
maybe tweak some extra beauty into the realm of possibilities. I
received the surprise advantage that by studying the Ammonium Ferric
Oxalate sensitizer, I was finally able to get a print right that I had
not been able to print right for three years.
Also the question should be rephrased as "did", as unless for a reason
as above, I plan to continue purchasing from a commercial supplier (as
long as the stuff's top quality). The procedure is tedious and my test
results showed no difference in the prints. Well, there is some
curiosity of a potential to improve high highlights, but that study is
off in the future. Never say never.
>
> 2. What quantity would you have to make to effect an economy?
> 3. Do you factor in your own time in the operation?
I do not know, and frankly do not care. If I can get results that
please me then I guess it's worth it.
One (or their CPA) could figure it out. However, I would consider a
quantity greater than that specified in the instructions to be in need
of more professional lab equipment.
> 4. You have said, "With all the hard work to master such a process, it's
> only fair that there is no charge for the information."
I have been making Pt/Pd prints for more than thirteen years after
starting with the benefit of having the advantage of making excellent
prints following the instruction of Sal Lopes. And I'm still working on
it. I recall Minor White said it would take him more than a lifetime to
master photography. I can empathize. Even if one has all the best
information available, experience only comes from doing it, and to have
a nature or a feeling for it only comes from much experience.
As you hinted in question 3, time is valuable. One should be able to
devote their time to the important pursuits; the other things should be
provided so as not to hinder or distract. Yes, if one appreciates the
work of an artist, and they care for that person, and they have the
means, they should buy the work if for no other reason than to allow the
artist the freedom to continue their betterment. Is that a true friend
or my crazy philosophy.
As an aside, it is especially common in the research sciences to freely
disseminate information. NPR (radio) had an interesting story today of
how business has been distorting this free flow of information to
generate profits. For example, delaying disclosure until a monetary
advantage is in hand. Certainly not the way I like to see things flow.
> 5. Finally, why is pt-pd so difficult? I did some a long long time ago. A
> friend gave me her classnotes & I bought the chemicals (from B&S, BTW).
> I thought the prints I made were very beautiful, in fact one of the
> reasons I lost interest was that it was so easy.
It can be as easy or as difficult as one wishes to make it. It can be
easy and difficult at the same time. Think of that print that took
three years to materialize. Like any process, it can take "more than a
lifetime" to fully understand why it's just so simple. For myself, the
interest is maintained.
> Where did I go wrong?
What's wrong with Gum?
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Nov 05 1999 - 21:26:27