From: pete (temperaprint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 12/14/01-07:44:13 PM Z
On 13/12/01 1:06 am, Judy Seigel at jseigel@panix.com wrote:
> It's true; I did have to read
> That section 3 times... finally figuring out what which alum was, tho that
> Could be personal brain death more than nit picking?
Judy I know all about senior moments, mine often tend to stretch into months
; -<
>
> BUT, what a jolly good fellow & artist David is (and I thought his prints
> In a recent Photovision, tho NOT gums, were terrific), is quite beside the
> point. The point is how much misinformation that book has perpetuated --
> And it is MUCH.
I think you are exaggerating this issue beyond its real importance. Most of
the book is perfectly sound as to the business about the Anderson
gum-pigment ratio test, which he couldn't POSSIBLY have tested against a
control.
The Real culprit is Paul Anderson not David Scopick. He just went on the
authority of other sources such as Dudly & Henny .We can take this a stage
further if we are to dam 'The Gum Bichromate book ' because of this
inaccuracy then we have to dam all the other books containing it including
As you say: --
> metasticized throughout the gum literature (tho he probably got it first
> from KOL&before that Dudley &Henney-- he didn't make it up).
In an ideal world we would all be perfect but it just donıt happen like
that. We are lucky if we get it right 95% of the time, and as you go on to
say --:
> That said, I thought his first book was a delight, charming and wonderful.
> This second book, subtitled "Non-silver methods for photographic
> Printmaking" was, I thought a matter of overreaching. Going BEYOND his
> Own expertise -- perhaps a textbook example of "the Peter Principle.'"
I am sure if I took a magnifying glass to your excellent PFP magazine there
would be something I could take issue with. If I felt the need. However I
would not take this course of action. WHY! Because I find it delightful,
charming, wonderful, and packed full of interesting information
The point that I am trying to make is letıs taking the 95% if it works, and
be happy with that.
I am sorry that you felt --:
>I truly felt when I finished that book I had a
Net deficit of information -- stuff I'd tested & taught for 10 years had
Become murky.
Well I did not, on the contrary I had a net profit -- related to stuff I'd
tested & taught for 35 years: -->>
Pete
BTW I think "the Peter principle.'" was named after me!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST