From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/04/03-12:47:04 AM Z
Chris, you've got it backwards again. Or you're gaslighting me. My
primary objection to Anderson is that he leaves out the bichromate and the
exposure, which are crucial to results. You said Demachy did the same
thing. He didn't -- not only were both the tests on page 31 different, the
second one was THE OPPOSITE !!!
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> >
> <I said>OH, except Demachy in 1898 (does he count?
> <Judy asked> Which article/book is that?
>
> Demachy Photo Aquatint, p. 31, I gave you the source offlist a while back.
Did you understand the point I was making? Did I fail to make it clearly?
I'm going to repeat it now with many exclamation points and then leave you
to heaven. On page 31 of Alfred Maskell and Robert Demachy's
"Photo-Aquatint" in Peter Bunell's Arno Press re-issue of 1973 we find,
NOT A TEST, but a PROOF!!! They are PROVING that pigment stain is caused
by too little gum... In fact they call these "preliminary experiments."
The first experiment, it's true, has no exposure, but IT DOES HAVE THE
BICHROMATE. The paper is coated WITH THE BICHROMATE, gum and pigment, but
not exposed. This may or may not PROVE anything beyond a nice little demo
that some mixes may wash off better than others without exposure. But it
made them happy and it's there... That we've had another 100 years of
experience and we know now that to "prove" a point you have to test
*against* it, not just do it, doesn't take away from the charm and
information of this treatise. But this is NOT the same as Anderson.
The second "experiment" on page 31 *is* exposed, and with the bichromate,
BUT NO GUM AT ALL. Just bichromate, pigment and exposure. The result
presumably is total stain -- that's the POINT they were making -- no gum
means much stain. Would any of us doubt that? In fact it's a PROOF more
than an "experiment."
And clearly it's the absolute OPPOSITE of Anderson, who fancies that he
can determine the right *proportion* of gum to pigment without the
bichromate OR the exposure. He cannot, cannot, cannot !!!!! Not to mention
that the moment you add the sensitizer the proportion CHANGES --- and
changes AGAIN if you change the proportion of sensitizer. (Maybe that's
why Sam Wang does it dry? Sam, you're not doing Anderson are you????!!!!)
Meanwhile, as far as we know, Anderson never did test his thesis, nor did
any of his disciples. They just DID it -- and maybe they didn't get
stain. What did that prove?!!! Maybe if they rubbed the paper with
pachouli oil it would have the same effect. Or their feet. They were
using such small amounts of pigment it hardly could stain if it wanted
to... They needed to test to prove that their test was valid. They
didn't. What they did I would call the Placebo Test.
Anyway, and however, with modern sizing or other approaches to gum, as
someone (Sullivan? Melvyn?) said, pigment staining isn't a big problem...
Incidentally, this treatise was also reprinted in French by Jean-Michel
Place in 1985. The format is different, as is some of the front matter,
but it seems essentially the same otherwise.
What I found most interesting, aside from the historic or sentimental
value, was the subtlety of development technique -- that seems not to have
changed at all, at least not around here.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:45 AM Z CST