From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/22/02-12:18:17 AM Z
Sandy and company,
This has been delayed by malevolent digitons & other details, but I think
important enough to go back to now. Sandy, you missed the fact that I said
the dichromate in the VDB sensitizer DID increase contrast... And perhaps
on that account generalized unduly...I said I'd...
> ... exposed to the max, that is
> >to the point that the bottom steps blocked up. I therefore assumed that
> >the cliff at the other end was intrinsic, not to be overcome by more
> >exposure...
and you replied...
> Right. Nothing that I did actually increased contrast.
Which was exactly what I didn't say...
> ... That is, the test wedge with and
> without the addition of potassium dichromate had the same number of
> steps from Dmax to Dmin.
Which was NOT what I found... I found fewer steps, with the top steps so
contrasty, not much use. But I want to address your final comment...
putting me in good company of course, but I think you're barking up the
wrong tree: You said,
> Too bad that so much unverified BS has been lavished on the naive by
> persons who did not take the time to verify for themselves procedures
> which they claim to work. I find fault with James (and others) for
> this, in spite of many other fine things about his book which I would
> praise, and even though he has probably been effectively immunized
> from criticism by his praise of all the esteemed and venerable in the
> world of alt photography, including - and in the same sentence - Judy
> Seigel, Dick Sullivan and Mike Ware.
I'm thrilled that you realize how "esteemed and venerable" I really am
(although I fear you are in a very small company), but the mark of the
TRULY venerable is to welcome correction. When one is usually so right, a
learning opportunity is much appreciated. So, please, feel free.
Meanwhile, as it happens I have a rant in current P-F about the very sin
you describe, evident to the point of hilarity in another new book, the
editor(s) having clearly not seen, let alone done, stuff they put into
print, simply copying from previous sources, which copy from previous
sources, etc, assuming the alt "canon" is as reliable as Kodak. For
reasons I've explained & will explain again (tho not now), it isn't.
I can't say why you and I had such different results with the dichromate
in the VDB, and I can't say Christopher James walks on water, but I would
say that of the books on alt process I've seen in which one author/editor
presents an omnibus of media, his book seems by far the most authoritative
and carefully vetted.
True, he put Galina in, I think it was Denmark, and spelled Deardorff
wrong, but -- not only has he done and taught much of it himself for 20
years, I can attest that he carefully (to the point of mania) vetted most
if not all with other practitioners. That is, so far I've found this
impossibly named book (which I have now got wrong twice in print) mostly
first-hand info and generally, refreshingly correct.
best,
Judy
>
> Sandy King
> --
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST