Re: Chrome alum

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

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.


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST