From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/08/03-03:12:05 AM Z
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> 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
Oh my, Christina.... when Scopick said in just about so many words, "I
don't see why Ms Seigel doesn't stick to her knitting, but has to meddle
with what isn't her business, but if she had trouble doing my test she
should have come to me privately and I would have helped her..." I
wouldn't say that was, or was intended to be, kind -- in fact seemed to me
snotty to the max. (And I think I have that e-mail somewhere if you
forgot.)
As for HIS having tested the famed notorious ludicrous bizarre mistaken
unscientific gum-pigment ratio test, no he didn't.... unless you count
DOING it as testing it, which hello, hello, it isn't. If I want to test a
cold remedy, for instance, just giving the medicine isn't a "test." It has
to be compared with a variable. The only meaningful test of something is
to test it AGAINST something else, which he did not. And it's pretty
shocking, say I, that I have to explain that, even to him, apparently.
I would HAVE to say I hadn't "tested it" because it's impossible to test
it just alone, on its own terms. To repeat, just DOING it isn't a test...
You can do those gum extensions til cows fly, but unless you CHECK against
the real thing, that is, using the dichromate, with DIFFERENT ratios and
the exposure you have done nothing except grow older.
And I certainly did establish the contrary, and put on page 46 of P-F #2.
If anyone cares to visit I will show them the 21-steps. What I found was
that TWICE the pigment gave LESS stain when exposed with dichromate and
developed. Which ipso facto disproves the GPR test in which the PREMISE is
you need less pigment to gum ratio to avoid stain. So what is there more
to test? As the philospher said, all you need to prove that not all swans
are white is one black swan.
Now if someone or someones found the Scopick test "helpful", well, we all
need all the help we can get. Sometimes a nice cup of tea is helpful,
but that *proves* ... nothing.
I've also called this the placebo effect -- but we have enough of that in
the field of medicine.. even SCIENTISTS are fooled by it... so much so
that the standard for medical surveys is double blind, in fact there is
now a computer program to garble results so that the testers can't tell
what's happening until they're finished.
As far as HOW MANY people don't believe that test, my dears, though I like
to think of myself as an original, alas in this case I wasn't the only --
for instance Mike Ware, he of holy name, was the one who gave the
EXPLANATION for what I had found empirically... why the GPR test was
irrelevant and immaterial, and I quoted him at the time of this
discussion, several times in fact, and also in Post-Factory. And at the
time of the original GREAT GPR flap on this list, other people said they
too had found it immaterial. I THINK one of them was Joe Smiegel, tho
don't remember for sure, and if it wasn't, Joe I apologize for taking your
name in vain...Tho of course it's, um, flattering that I'm the only one
Katharine Thayer remembers...
I don't think I'm going to convince her of anything, and would not presume
to try, but I want at least to put a touch of reality on the table.
> > the "debunking" of the pigment test was completely discredited by gum
> > experts on this list as well as by Scopick himself. That horse has
Oh? I must have missed that... by whom? how? By saying it was *helpful*?
I think Cactus cowboy said that, but don't remember another....
> > beaten to death, but it seems like some people haven't got the message.
>
> >I thought someone needed to speak up again and try to set the record
> straight...
> > Katharine Thayer
Clearly one person's "straight" is another person's crooked... and just as
clearly, "facts" are not at issue here, but feelings. However, anyone can
try a REAL test... And you don't have to be an "expert" gum printer to do
so.
Meanwhile, I have another goody, just found today... which took all of 5
minutes, or maybe it was 3 minutes to discover... I'll save that for
tomorrow, though. It's 4:08 AM.
But Christina, it is truly amazing how much bad info is circulated and
"authoritative" -- this is endemic to alt photo in particular (and I don't
think I've got a single book that doesn't say something I know for a fact
is wrong... the only difference is the number and egregiosity of the
errors).
Try the 2nd edition of Photographic Possibilities, the "alternative
processes" chapter, for some lulus... And the fancy Ansel Adams "Guide"
book 2... In fact I suspect Kosar... too many "probably's" and "it would
seem's." Kodak used to boast that it spent 3 million dollars a day on
research.... If Kodak made an error it cost them a great deal of money and
hurt the company. Where is the alt photo research? Only us ! So the
Scopick GPR test has spread like the green bay tree... but there's no
commercial value or industry riding on it, so it will probably last
forever.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST