From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/15/01-01:07:04 PM Z
Pete,
What you say is true in the abstract of course, but loses sight of the
REASON for my rant: It was the citation of Scopick as *authority* in some
matter or other (lost in the HTML by now). I could do no less than say unh
unh... But there's a much broader issue at issue. And here I quote from a
"review" I'm writing at this very moment for upcoming P-F:
".....So I repeat my observation from P-F the first: What comes to us from
Kodak, the UR Source for silver-gelatin factory materials, is usually
reliable for its time, whether directly from the Great Yellow Father, or
indirectly by way of the "canon." But non-silver "information,"
trustingly passed along from some of the same books, is a stealth attack,
setting the wrong assumptions of newbies (or non-bies) in concrete."
================================
This in reference to yet another book with bad alt info... Maybe if I
say it long & loud enough we'll get some respect. Anyway, as I explained
at the time that was why I had to start Post-Factory.
> 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.
Why not? *I* tested it. What's the problem?
> 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
No, the real culprit is whoever passes along 2nd hand information without
either qualifying or testing. And that's why I stick my neck out & ruffle
feathers here and elsewhere. (It's just like going into therapy to stop
the chain of family dysfunction passed down from generation to generation
!!!!) I could trace that Paul Anderson mistake (what I call the "seems
logical disease") to Henney & Dudley (or is it Dudley & Henney?) where it
was actually by Anderson, then from there to Crawford Keepers of Light
(tho it may have been elsewhere also that I missed), and from there to
Scopick, and from Scopick to John Schaefer's "Ansel Adams Guide #2." And
who knows where else from those "authorities"?
As I noted in first Post-Factory, Kodak used to boast that it spent 3
million dollars a day on research (or some figure like that)-- NECESSARY
for its commercial viability. Our processes had no commercial value, and
no interest from engineers. When Paul Anderson made up a cockamamie
"test", which seemed plausible because so elaborate & longwinded, they
either couldn't care less, or figured he was as "scientific" as they were
-- or both. But that's just a handy example... as we have seen on this
list, a LOT of assumptions are not so, or only when you stand looking
east.
Is it unreasonable to suggest that a book selling info have tested the
info it's marketing? That's a fault in much current alt lit...
Interestingly, there's NO false information, or none that I found, in the
old Puyo and Demachy. Maybe the progenitors didn't feel need to claim more
than they knew firsthand? In modern manuals, Bea Nettles was as I recall
the first in our time slot, and wrote from only her own experience -- so
her info is good. Plus I am compelled to mention Christopher James's new
book again... he dodged the bullet (as far as I've seen so far) by having
the stuff vetted by the reigning experts... plus of course his own
teaching experience.. those students do put yr feet to the fire.
> inaccuracy then we have to dam all the other books containing it including
I'm not damning them -- I'm saying this is the one that's CURRENT, where
it's coming from now, also that whoever presents his or her book as
authority has a responsibility for the material beyond just cut and paste.
And *I* have a responsibility to the facts & the trouble-with-alt-lit,
also. I mean if I know the water may be suspect am I supposed to shut up
about it to be nice?
> 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
But Pete, if we can't point to OBVIOUS error because the fellow is a doll,
how will we ever get anywhere? In my opinion, I'll add, this discussion of
the "authorities" is essential and as useful to alt as any one thing in
any book.
> 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
I wish you would -- I'd love it. But aside from the fact that I know to
cover my ass -- by not quoting "the literature" without qualifications, I
have several advantages the prior lit didn't have... First of all as a
periodical I can correct as I go along, and hardly an issue has not had
either an "erratum" insert or a subsequent letter to ed or other course
correction.
Secondly, I came to the project after an education on this list -- which
with my own tests made it perfectly clear that there were mistakes out
there. I could cite my own first tests in gum ... I didn't have a clue
that what, for instance alizarin crimson, did not every other color would
do, and spent a month in that pigment then generalizing. Also
circumstances conspired to give me a series of piss-and-vinegar students
who LOVED to make trouble. I had to test a LOT just to stay even. And
learned how iffy *my* sources had been, etc. etc.
> The point that I am trying to make is letıs taking the 95% if it works, and
> be happy with that.
That 95% is a figure you pluck from air. And often as not the DEVIL is in
that other 5%. Or 50% if you care to BET on a figure. And even at 95%, if
you're jumping over a river, and make only 95%, you'll land in the drink.
Also, you say "if it works." There are also false assumptions that skew
the practice -- like the gum pigment test which made everyone do itty
bitty pastel layers. NOT a contribution, but a debit.
> Well I did not, on the contrary I had a net profit -- related to stuff I'd
> tested & taught for 35 years: -->>
But you were doing a *variant* -- and just the spelling could make
everything different. And where's your gratitude that you now know about
the gum-pigment business?
> BTW I think "the Peter principle.'" was named after me!
I took that as a given, but oooops, failed to test.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST