From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 08/18/03-07:39:25 AM Z
Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> My thoughts this morning have ranged back to Ed Buffaloe's first gum
> print,
.......
But since the sensible way to print gum is to start
> with a test print or test strip of some kind, the likelihood of a
> reasonable gum printer overexposing to this extent in the normal course
> of making gum prints should be very close to zero.
Reading over this post, which I should have done before I sent it rather
than after, I see it could be read in a way I didn't mean. I started
with Ed's print as an example, but I wasn't thinking of Ed when I made
the later remark and didn't mean it to refer to Ed or his print. In
fact, I got to thinking later that I may have got Ed's print confused
with someone else's question. I tried to find Ed's post about his print
but don't seem to have it in my files anymore; my response to it, which
I did find, suggests that Ed didn't even give the exposure time for the
print, which shows that I don't have any idea whether it was overexposed
or not. The point I was trying to make, and seem to have made quite
badly if at all, was that if his print *had* been overexposed, there
would be no way of separating out overexposure from other, more likely
(IMO) explanations for the solid black print Ed got.
Quitting before the hole I'm digging gets any deeper,
Katharine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:46 AM Z CST