From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/17/01-01:48:51 AM Z
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, pete wrote:
>
> I too have little time for the *authority* concept but isnšt this just what
> you are trying to establish a Seigel *authority*
Pete, I think not... I put info in terms of "my findings," or what
so-and-so says or said. Not an authority, but a *report.*
> ... I know of several
> gum printers who have said whilst the gum test wasnšt conclusive, they
> gained an intimate understanding of the principle underlying pigment stain.
> So out of perceived evil came a net gain, ;-<
Actually, I doubt that they did... because the *principle* he presented is
that you need a certain "ratio" of gum to pigment to prevent stain. I've
shown 21-steps where *infinite* pigment didn't stain, the emulsion had so
much body it *flaked* off , but white underneath. Pigment stain is
something else... HOWEVER, where you ARE getting stain, the more pigment
the more stain.... if you use less pigment you get less stain -- hence the
MISunderstanding of pigment stain. I don't see that as net gain .... by
that standard, any mistake where you learn something else is "net gain,"
which hardly justifies spreading error.
> I have not done this test my self so it might be interesting try this out in
> the near future if I can squeeze it in some time
Well if you do, bear in mind that results change completely with each
change in the paper -- which paper, shrunk, not shrunk, gelatin sized, not
sized, first coat, later coat, good luck.
> OK fair enough but arenšt you exaggerating the seriousness of this
> Misdemeanour
Well it's not life and death... but neither is gum printing. What it does
is make me say just quoting Scopick (as whoever did on a topic that ALSO
wasn't earth-shaking serious, as little we say here really is) isn't
proof. But that got me in a lot of hot water. How serious is that?
> Again you are bashing Paul Anderson who also made a major contribution, to
> the world of the Historical control processes as they were then called, all
> this info was written in the between the wars, when one did not question
> *Authority* once established.
Pete !!! You mean whoever made a major contribution is sacrosanct? If so,
I suppose Euclid or Gallileo or whover said the sun revolves around the
earth would be unassailable. As for "one did not question Authority
between the wars once established" -- Established by whom? If you mean
Anderson's authority, well.... the books that passed his gum pigment test
down to us were 1970s & 80s.
I've read a lot of gum lit from before Anderson... less error. My
diagnosis, since you insist, was that by the time he was doing it, gum or
the control processes were passe, the critical, scientific attention
wasn't there. I'll have to check the book on "the control processes"
again. As I recall, was closer to Demachy & co, that is, better. I think
Anderson was doing what software designers wanting to sell another upgrade
do, overdesign, overdetermine, overengineer... And maybe that goes for
Scopick too (unless we blame it on the publisher)?????
> In the best of all possible worlds Yes, but life just aynt like that, if you
> have ever had a book published then you know what I mean. The publisher
> often tries to take over, through perceived concepts of marketing which
> often have nothing to do with the spirit of the book. Often making it
> difficult to write from your own experience alone. All I know is the book I
> presented to focal Press in 1978 was not the book that was published in
> 1980.
Did they make you say something you didn't think was true? Tell us more!
(I like that book -- maybe they were *also* helpful? As I recall, it sold
out???)
> No it is just that whenever David Scopick is mentioned out comes the Paul
> Anderson cudgel, but no mention of how you feel about his first book only
> scathing comments about the second
But Peter dear, the stuff quoted was not in the first book -- and the
later book, truth to tell, buried the first in my mind. Like a guy who was
so adorable on the first date, then drives you crazy for years. The first
edition was completely different, nothing like the second at all, is never
quoted, or even mentioned...
> The guy is far from a doll but he is a good author, very good teacher, and
> an excellent Gum Printer.
The author part I have problems with, is my point, as for the others,
beside the point. You have to remember the proximate cause...
> > 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
> > Youšre jumping over a river, and make only 95%; you'll land in the drink.
>
> Again over exaggeration you would not even get your feet wet gum printing is
> not a life or death situation
But, as noted above, it's what we were talking about.
> > 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.
> Perhaps they liked pastel colours in any case, any self respecting real
> alternative worker would change the methodology to suite there internal
> vision, if there is any real problem, it is mindless obedience to
> *authority* whether it be Pervade by Scopick Seigel or Fredrick
No, there's a mythology about "the nature of gum" as in the last
Photographer's Formulary catalog I saw.....many excellent gum printers
have learned on their own that these are myths, but why should there be
EXTRA obstacles ?
> Shame on you Judy I would have thought that it would be self evident without
> testing !
Oh yeah, that's what Anderson thought.... "self-evident" is the devil at
work.
The problem with testing however, & here I am serious, is that it's never
ever conclusive, there's always something not nailed down & it can drive
you crazy. I like testing because in a sense it never fails, always gives
you information (lots of my "art" fails)... But the trick is to READ the
results and/or conceptualize the problem. I'm having trouble right now for
instance with what was going to be an hour just to check for when you get
hotspots. I got some answers, but so many more questions... And one
answer I DIDN'T want -- my lights are uneven. Would NEVER have shown up
in normal use... Think I'll just roll back the clock...
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST