From: pete (temperaprint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 12/12/01-01:44:56 PM Z
on 11/12/01 12:04 am, Katharine Thayer at kthayer@pacifier.com wrote:
> Judy Seigel wrote:
>>
>> I was pointing to the fact that he changes terms midstream. That is, under
>> the chrome alum he refers to white alum, presumably the potassium alum,
>> but under potassium alum he never says "this is the white alum", only
>> referring to it as "common" or colorless, so that a person could well
>> think there was some THIRD kind of alum, not in the index.
>>
>> This kind of thing does happen, but not good manual writing.
>
>
> It looks to me Scopick has been getting rather a bum rap in this whole
> discussion.
>
> In the text, he states clearly that he prefers formaldehyde, (formalin,
> if you will) and he gives instructions only for hardening with
> formaldehyde. He mentions the alums only in passing, referring anyone
> interested in learning about hardening with alums to another source.
> It's only in the chemical appendix that he gives the (correct) formulas
> for the alums, and makes the (apparently well-founded) statement that
> chrome alum hardens better than the ordinary white alum. I can find
> nowhere that he mistakenly says that either of the alums is sold as a
> dihydrate. The only charge that sticks is that he apparently
> overestimates the intelligence of his readers when he assumes that a
> person could deduce that "ordinary white" alum is probably the same as
> "common alum." But given how peripheral all this is to his text, I have
> a hard time thinking it's worth getting all worked up over.
>
> Katharine Thayer
I must agree with Katherine on this point. The statment made by Judy on this
occasion is nit picking, I see this as negative comment pointing in a
totally the wrong direction. This is my opinion not a personal attack, it is
just that we cant agree all the time, otherwise there would never be
meaningful discussion.
A more positive approach would be to praise David for the contribution he
has made to the development of the realm of photo/alt whilst mentioning any
minor discrepancies. His first book 'The Gum Bichromate book 'published in
1979 had a huge impact, popularising Gum printing during the latter part of
the twentieth century. The second was possibly not quite so good, but he
probably had problems with the publisher a common hazard when writing a
book.
David is not only both a very good author, a talented teacher, but also a
brilliant creative gum-printer. I had the privilege to work beside him, and
John Pollard FRPS Member of the London Salon, when we were invited to
conduct a symposium at RMIT Melbourne in May of 1994. The symposium
consisted of hands on master-classes a three-hour public forum and a group
exhibition of our work. In everybody's opinion David was the star of the
exhibition his fascinating prints of Mexico were breathtaking.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST