From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 02/07/03-11:20:19 PM Z
much as at anyone who continues to repeat this false
> assertion that Scopick's pigment test has been discredited, and
> certainly you implied that by using it as an example of wrong
> information that is given in texts.
NO, Katherine, I used Scopick as an example NOT of wrong information, but
as an example of how the list has ARGUED about information in books, whether
wrong or right, and dissed authors in the process, and I apologize if that
was not clear. I do not believe that Scopick is wrong, in fact, I believe
that he is "innocent until proven guilty" so to speak. Until I have tested
his test, I CANNOT pronounce him wrong based on one person's saying he is!
In fact, if that were the case, I would weigh it in favor of Scopick: one
person against four, and say, hey, four people say he's right so he must
be...but that's a crock and you know it!!!! That's a popularity contest,
not empirical truth!!! (hey, I figure with three exclamation points you'll
get my intense inflection?)
Yes, after I read my post I should have probably said to be clearer,
"...I will test before I discredit OR CREDIT his results" or something to
that matter, so that you could not jump to conclusions that in ANY way I am
implying that Scopick is wrong. Had I known what a sensitive issue this
was, I would have NEVER used it as an offhand example to illustrate my
point, which is this: there is a lot of conflicting info out there about
alt processes, and there certainly is a range of possible "recipes" that one
can test, but will I "empirically test" a formula for argyrotype that has
the dilution 10 times what every other book says? No.
Now, take into account the paper negative UV issue which prompted this
whole issue between you and I: I was told/read that RC paper contains UV
inhibitors; I shared that with the group thinking it was truth. You came
back saying that you used paper negs successfully with alt processes. I
say, hmmm....maybe it's not true what I read/heard about RC papers. You
come back again and say that maybe it is true of RC still, you don't know,
because you have only used fiber...etc. etc! I then think to myself, what
is true about this, well, I better go test both unpeeled RC and peeled RC
and fiber and see what up wit dat. Then I report back to the group. THAT's
what this whole group is about! Sharing of our findings.
So let's give Scopick a rest. I have absolutely NO opinion on Scopick.
I couldn't even! I am not a gum expert, for gosh sakes! I DO mistrust the
book that I read on argyrotype and will take other things in the book with a
grain of salt. But I also have no intention of running this author's name
into the ground just because I found him/her in error on one major point.
THAT is all I am saying. And no I didn't miss any of your points, but I
feel you have been jumping to major conclusions on mine. That does not seem
to me to be YOUR usual way of operating, as I find you a very scientific,
analytical, brilliant and persuasive person, AND I always read your posts.
I consider you, Dave, and Judy to be the people to listen to when it comes
to gum (oh my gosh, forgive me if I have forgotten ANYONE else, guys...)--in
fact, when in Japan I read and reread a mishmash of *200* single spaced 11
pt type pages of notes about all these things I have learned from the alt
list over and over and over and OVER, in preparation for my intensive
testing of processes I am doing this semester. I'm NOT a know it all; I'm
a learn-it-all--and where would I be without this list? Speaking of which,
anyone interested can check out my final article on the mordancage process
at Unblinkingeye.com--and some of my images. Ed Buffaloe did a wonderful
job of putting it all together. But if it wasn't for this list directing me
to patents, and sources, and magazine articles, and books and practitioners
and all, and Jon Bailey and Nate Apkon...the research would not have been
done. Those I contacted not on the list with a plea to share info--NONE
were forthcoming. They're not into sharing their secrets; well so be it--I
am.
Chris
I thought that if someone as
> knowledgeable and sensible and usually empirically based as you seem to
> be was repeating these accusations without qualification, then we did
> need a review of that discussion. And just a gentle reminder: if your
> tests show different results from Scopick's, that won't discredit his
> results, it will simply be a disagreement between honest researchers,
> which was my point. To say that you will test the test before you
> "discredit" it, is to miss my point.
> Katharine
>
> Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> >
> > <Christina Anderson wrote>
> > Speaking of which, as I am researching about 10 alt processes to
get
> > all my notes in one place and one format--Pagemaker--I have a stack of
15-20
> > books at my kitchen table. With each process I read all the books, and
take
> > notes. I am absolutely amazed at the inconsistencies and wrong
information
> > published. I know we have talked about this before on this list, in
> > specific, related to Scopick's pigment test (let's not rehash that
again),
> > but really! For instance, one formula for argyrotype had the elements
mixed
> > in 1 ltr of water, when all other books had the same amounts of
ingredients
> > mixed in 100ml water. I think that is a pretty big mistake (?) unless
there
> > is the ability for argyrotype to work under all kinds of dilutions.
> >
> > <Katherine Thayer wrote>
> > > No, actually, I think we do need to rehash this again, since it keeps
> > > coming back in these kinds of snide comments ("but really!")
> > Katherine,
> > My "snide comment" was not snide toward the hashing out of wrong
and
> > right, if you would read my post, and, in fact, snide was not my
tone--it
> > was incredulousness. My incredulousness was over the fact of the myriad
> > mistakes written in books that are really obvious--mixing a formula with
1
> > liter of water instead of 100 milliliters!!!!????
> > That said, I am not a gum expert and cannot refute or support
Scopick.
> > I learned gum from his book, so I have respect for him. I also respect
the
> > fact that he answered the accusations against him, and in a kind way.
The
> > point of hashing things out is to find truth, not to feed our egos as to
who
> > is "right". And, as you state in your second post, there is probably
not
> > only one truth, but many. Maybe I should have used, as an example, the
> > hashing out of the definition of lanscape, or the nude, or some other
> > example that would not have been so sensitive still.
> > What I don't like that happens on this list is character
assassination
> > that occurs frequently when people hotly disagree over a topic. You can
> > hotly debate pigment stain tests if you want, but to bring in an author
or
> > poster and discredit him/her
> > is unkind, just as your accusing me of making a snide comment is unkind.
> > You will notice I did not say who the author was of the book with
the
> > incorrect formula. I merely pointed out that the formula was severely
> > incorrect. Other minor inconsistencies I can live with. Maybe someone
will
> > tell me that argyrotype can be diluted that much and therefore this book
is,
> > in fact, correct.
> >
> > > the "debunking" of the pigment test was completely discredited by gum
> > > experts on this list as well as by Scopick himself. That horse has
> > > beaten to death, but it seems like some people haven't got the
message.
> >
> > I very much got the point of the pigment test and plan to test it myself
> > before I discredit it. Not only did I *get* the message, I have it
> > completely CUT AND PASTED in a "gum file" so I CAN test it one day!!!!
And,
> > furthermore, I even brought it with me to Japan and read and REREAD it
> > numerous times!!
> >
> > >To continue the original accusations as if these rebuttals
> > > hadn't been offered is to wilfully distort history and the facts.
> >
> > Good heavenly days, I made no such accusations.
> >
> > >I thought someone needed to speak up again and try to set the record
> > straight.
> > > Katharine Thayer
> >
> > You made your point loud and clear.
> > Chris
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST