From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 08/05/03-09:13:55 AM Z
Judy,
<Judy said> Chris, you've got it backwards again. Or you're gaslighting me.
First White Duchessing, then garbling, now gaslighting. My goodness, I use
a lot of ruses!
First of all, my bad. It was not you who said the NEVER word. After wading
thru back posts it was Keith Gerling's words, so you are exonerated on this
one. 2/14/02 post.
My original point which somehow has been lost, convoluted, mixed up, etc.,
so that I don't even know what the heck we are discussing (like following
the tail of a white tail deer, switching directions all over the place), is
very simple: I thought we were discussing whether "Anderson invented
pigment stain." I reported that as far back as the beginning of gum,
testing stain was discussed. This tells me that, for whatever myriad
causes, stain was a problem since the beginning of gum, for some people.
Whether or not it was promoted in some certain way or some certain complex
fetishistic fashion equivalent or not to the Anderson method (whew!) is not
what we were originally discussing. And there are people who have found the
non addition of bichromate in the testing process compares equally to the
addition of bichromate in the testing process. The tests from the beginning
have included non exposure and bichromate. There are people who have found
Anderson's test valid.
<Judy said>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 !!!
> 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."
Again, my original point: stain testing was from the beginning. Second,
Demachy as you say below left out exposure and so did other testers. Third,
whether a test shows too much pigment or too little gum isn't that the same?
Aren't we talking about the same thing: an incorrect gum/pigment ratio?
>
> 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.
In my unscientific pea brain of a mind, my musing is this:
1. Staining in my book is the ability of a pigment to sink into the paper
fibers and stay there and not budge, even with brushing.
2. Gum arabic keeps the pigment off the paper, suspended.
3. At a certain point if too little gum is used or too much sensitizer
ruins the viscosity of the gum, whichever one is arrived at first, the
pigment sinks into the paper fibers.
4. Adding exposure to the equation adds another variable and a whole new
set of testing, equally and additively valid.
5. Some people confuse overexposure and pigment not leaving the highlights
as "stain" where *in my book* if this can be alleviated by lessened
exposure, this is not stain.
6. Sometimes the latter point--exposure--can be such that stain is
alleviated because the hardened gum keeps the pigment off the paper better
than no hardened gum.
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:45 AM Z CST