From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 11/07/00-02:58:43 PM Z
Wayde,
It's probably a character flaw, but if I don't understand something,
before I admit that I'm stupid or lazy, I tend to wonder if it's been
adequately explained.
When I said you were being abstract I meant just that. You gave no example
we could imagine, much less follow, in concrete terms. Those who deal in
that jargon may punt & catch such phrases all day long (like the guys
telling jokes by calling out the numbers) but the connection to reality
isn't visible to the non-initiate.
How about a for-instance, not just abstract assurance, but a real test
about something you might do -- no, make that about something *I* might
do, because I don't want your rigamarole, but my own. Let's say I want to
find out why the gelatined paper hardened with glyoxal that sat on the
table, but UNDER some other paper, for 6 months discolored, and my test
strips in the file are as white as the driven snow.
My theory now is that something in the applied dichromate (if the print is
made promptly, as the test strips were) forestalls the discoloration.
That it wasn't *where* the papers were stored, but what stage they were in
that made the difference. To test, I would put the same paper side by side
on the table, one with a test strip exposed & developed on it, one blank.
One variable, right? Well, I guess I've spoiled that example by starting
with an *intuitive* theory and proposition. But how else could you
approach it?
So seems to me there are at least two (other) types of testing, both done
very well with one variable: Type A: test a *hypothesis* (as example
above). Type B: answer a question (as about the staining of am di versus K
di, described yesterday). I don't see your grander scheme applying to
either, at least as I (don't) understand it.
> Everything I've ever read about any of the photographic processes
> indicates that these are highly non-linear and complex processes. Even
Ah, that's exactly the term I would have used if I'd thought of it...
definitely non-linear. But,,,,,,"non-linear" doesn't mean go in circles !
> Judy has posted a fair amount about the problems with the old gum staining
> test and noted that it can't work because it leaves out the dichromate and
> that the staining "depends" on the presence of the dichromate. This is
Well, I don't know that I'd put it quite like that ("depends on"), but
whatever happens *without* the dichromate is something else.
> exactly the problem - many of the variables do depend on each other, and
> often in a very non-linear way. I think Judy, that if you read our posts
> carefully you will find we are saying the same thing. I'm just trying to
> offer a way around this problem.
Did my best, Wayde. But you're still not being concrete. When I tested
potassium dichromate v. am dichromate I had only one "variable" -- the
chemicals, used at the same dilution. Maybe 3 pigments on 2 or 3 papers,
everything else the same. 6-9 little strips, exposed & developed together
-- 20 minutes prep, 1 hour soak, and finished.
Testing a dispersal agent with gum I also used one variable: addition of
the agent. Again, about 20 minutes prep for maybe 3 pigments on a couple
of papers. I didn't discover any wider truths, whatever they might have
been, used my regular materials & got the info I wanted: what would be the
point of something more elaborate?
> No one is saying that you have to use any of these tools. I just wanted
> the group to be aware of the problem and to know what the scientific
> community has done to work around it. These same methods are also used to
Alas, I have no idea *what* "the scientific community" has done to work
around *which* problem. I only know that you have *claimed* a problem that
I never noticed, and that I'm very skeptical of. You cite an apparently
well-accepted theory in *jargon,* or, to give you the benefit of doubt,
abstract technical terms. Which is to say, don't just claim it, prove
something.
> winnow through very large variable sets with the least number of tests
> possible. Since we have large variable spaces here, it seems that this
> might be of some use to help make this problem more tractable.
> One-variable-at-a-time testing forces the researcher to try every possible
> combination of a set of variables to get results, and this clearly isn't
That's absolutely not the case ! As per my examples above, only the
combinations of normal practice, or a representative set thereof are
required. And even your Correlative Variables Maven isn't going to test
100 pigments. You set up a straw test that doesn't exist to "prove" your
theory. Tsk tsk.
> possible. The tools I'm suggesting try to get at this information without
> needing to run every test combination.
I don't. You don't. She don't. NOBODY does.
> If theories and models are bogus concepts, then why do we talk about how
> any of these processes work? We've all listened to Judy's theories about
> gum printing. Katherine Thayer has also offered theories of her own. If
> theories aren't worth discussing then do we throw these out too? Sure
> theories fail, but they do give one something to work from. What is
What theories have I (or Katherine) stated? Do you mean *generalizations *
from findings? I don't recall any overarching "theories" of gum printing,
except perhaps as a gloss on more concrete matters. These generalizations
are based on specific experience (and often refer to it) which, I repeat,
so far you have not provided. The findings could be partial, tentative, or
faulty in some way, but they are not "theories" as I find your abstract
over-arching *theory* of testing -- so far.
> particularly amazing is that I've not given any offer of a printing theory
> here at all. I've also not specified any particular printing model
> either. What I've tried to do is offer a different framework to hang the
> information we've already been gathering on. The idea is to try and give
And I'm trying to say that your "framework" doesn't communicate, doesn't
give any insight at all in just *words*. Or not to me. Not that a case
can't be made, but that those abstractions haven't made it.
> us some hopefully better insight into these processes so that we can
> improve on, and help develop new and/or better models.
I don't refuse insights, but I have to be able to *get* them.
> Anyway, if you feel that what I've said doesn't apply to alt process work,
> that is certainly your prerogative. Those of you who might be interested
> have some starting references.
>
> (Oh, and by the way Judy, there is a theoretical explanation for why
> bumblebee's fly. The problem wasn't so much that it couldn't be
> explained. It just doesn't follow the classical Bernoulli principle like
> airplanes do. You have to resort to turbulence theory.)
Oh, so you mean one theory *doesn't* fit all -- in the matter of
bumblebees?
Best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/01/00-11:46:56 AM Z CST