Re: a funny thing/ Re: Anderson again two

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/09/02-01:42:48 AM Z


On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Cactus Cowboy wrote:

> ... After all, you did dismiss the past
> with the following quotation:
>
> > "HISTORY IS MORE OR LESS BUNK..."

Dave Dear, I think I've diagnosed one of your problems: You lack a sense
of humor. Another is that you are incorrigible. I think for reasons of my
treasonous statements re this and that item of HISTORY (about actual
concrete facts of history, which you seem to regard as "bunk") you are
determined to rewrite everything I say into something you imagine you can
"disprove."

It's quite flattering of course, and also of course futile to waste
bandwidth pointing out what I DID say... But in brief here -- the
difference between potassium dichromate and ammonium dichromate was NOT
the point of my 3 tests. The effect of dichromate itself as a factor in
printing was.

As for,

> due to your imprecise methodology, e.g. "Choose a tube watercolor that likes
> to stain. Mix enough of it into 10 cc of gum arabic to make a strong color."
>
> What exactly is "strong color"? How is the pigment being measured? By eye?
> By weight? By volume?
>

I deliberately made these tests casual... So even a non-gum printer could
give them a whirl -- the point being that almost ANY use of them.... NOT
rigidly spelled out, not to the "dram" -- would prove the point. It didn't
matter how the pigment was measured, as long as the method was constant
for all. And if the person didn't know to do that, well I doubt even my
talents could help them. For these purposes anyway, makes not a whit of
difference how the pigment is measured... as you know perfectly well -- or
should.

> It's apparent that you favor a casual 'mix by eye' approach Judy. Given
> that, the very notion of a measured gum/pigment ratio is meaningless to you.
> I'm not knocking your printing methods as long as they work for you and
> you're happy with the results. If you can't or won't appreciate the value
> of using a precise approach to gum printing, please don't criticize those
> who do.

Dave, again, what's apparent is that you'll write whatever comes to mind
to prove my badness. Check Post-Factory #1, 2, & 6 and you'll see the
scale I weigh pigment on and enough nitpicky precision about WEIGHING
PIGMENT, measuring emulsion, order of exposure, order of coats,type of
brushes, effect of balance of ingredients, paper, developing, sizing, to
quite justify the series title, "Annals of Gum Control."

Are you doing this just to give me a chance to advertise? OK, since you
insist: I've spent thousands of words & many pages on drops, ratios,
distinctions, variables, test strips, test strips, and test strips...
boxes full. What I'm criticizing is not the "precise approach" which I
frankly feel I've done to a fault. But the FAKE precise approach based on
an utterly invalid idea.

As I said, however "helpful" the G-P-R test may have been... tests with
the dichromate and a step tablet would have been more helpful.

best,

Judy


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST