From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/21/02-05:25:17 PM Z
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> .... I am comparing
> different formulae in action, and one may call for ammonium thiocyanate, one
> for sodium, and I'm trying to get by with having to purchase as little as
> possible to do my testing. When you compare, let's say, 10 out of print
> books that include these processes, not a one matches in amounts or
> chemicals used in their formulae, and it's not like you can know which one
> works best, without buying all the chems. So I suppose I may just try the
> shot in the dark approach, and pick one.
That was exactly my surmise from old formulas... one would call for
ammonium thiocyanate, another for potassium, etc., and the proportions, &
added ingredients would vary as well. It seemed, finally, that if it
worked at all, these particulars weren't critical, and if it didn't work
there was no magic bullet would make it. Plus -- the other ingredients --
your paper, water, developer, fix, etc., are variables as well, and very
different from the originals.
My favorite story along these lines was told (if memory serves) by Doug
Munson. In the early days of reviving albumen printing it proved
impossible to replicate certain effects. Then in an inspired move,
someone added trace elements of copper to the mix -- early albumen egg
whites had been whipped in copper bowls -- et voila !
cheers,
Judy
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST