From: Ed Buffaloe (EdBuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com)
Date: 03/10/02-03:56:22 PM Z
Judy,
I was simply reporting what Stevens & Norrish say in their paper
from 1937--All of my quotes were from Stevens & Norrish, not Jolly. I
apologize if that wasn't clear.
Ed Buffaloe
http://unblinkingeye.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Cc: <alt-photo-process-error@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: Sabatier halation and bromide
> The areas with the most development require the biggest push (ie., the
> most re-exposure) to reverse... Is that really "desensitization" or maybe
> just further to go? As noted, I've found Jolly tends to claim more than
> he's proved & claims some things that aren't so -- And since I've had
> reversal with NO development (as on the dye transfer matrix, which got a
> short extra exposure before it ever went in the water, and totally
> solarized), I don't see how that statement can be true (or even if true
> some of the time, not defining).
> ... On page
> 32, in their summation, they state: "It must be admitted, in view of the
> known restraining action of bromides and oxidation products, that the
lines
> may on occasions be reinforced by this effect...."
"On occasions." Sure. But what about the *no* occasions ? Jolly is
making an over-arching theory that DOES NOT (excuse the expression)
COMPUTE. Sure, an edge effect can reinforce whatever, so can strength of
developer. Or exposure. Or time of development. As we know without a
theory.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST