From: Dave Rose (cactuscowboy@attbi.com)
Date: 02/12/03-10:32:44 PM Z
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:12 AM
Subject: facts, feelings, wishes and swans...
>
> 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.)
******
Dear Judy:
Did Mr. Scopick answer accusations against him "in a kind way" or was he
"snotty to the max"? I did not read the original exchange of messages.
When you write "Scopick said in just so many words" followed by a
fictionalized quote, it comes across as your underhanded way of misquoting
the man. To be fair to Mr. Scopick, you should find that elusive email and
post an accurate quotation.
******
> 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.
******
Thank you for admitting that you haven't properly done the GPR test. Is
that correct? That's how I read the above paragraph.
I have done the GPR test using many dozens of different watercolor tube and
dry artists pigments. I've also tested the same pigments at many different
ratios using sensitizer and making the "real thing" (prints). In my
opinion, the GPR test is only a starting point for roughly gauging the
staining tendencies of individual pigments.
Of course adding sensitizer changes the results! Anderson, who invented
the test, said as much when he wrote: "Note that no sensitizer is used in
these determinations". Reference: Henney and Dudley, eds., Handbook of
Photography, pp. 489-490. Maybe you missed that while doing your research?
******
> 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.
******
Your article that you refer to, entitled "One Little Test" is just that -
one little test using one pigment. You're making broad, sweeping
generalizations and reaching hasty conclusions based on one test of one
pigment.
Using certain pigments, I've observed the same phenomenon seen in your test.
But, I've also had far different and opposing results using other pigments.
Not all pigments behave the same way.
You ask "So what is there more to test?" How about dozens if not hundreds
of different pigments beyond the one you did actually test?
******
> 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.
******
If someone finds a particular test helpful, that proves that it's helpful.
If you disagree, then don't bother doing the test.
******
> 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 find it easy to believe that some individuals with limited experience in
gum printing might actually buy your arguments. I don't. As for Mike Ware,
the fellow you've put on a pedestal, he's not written anything about gum
that I don't already know from experience. Nor have you.
******
> 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.
******
Another independent thinker..that's what I really like about Katherine.
******
> > > 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....
******
I get nervous when you "think" you remember what I "said". The only reason
I'm responding to your email is the mention of my name in the above
paragraph. To set the record straight, yes I have found the GPR test
helpful. That doesn't mean I consider it the Holy Grail of gum printing. I
understand its limitations better than you do.
******
> > > 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.
>
******
Try your publication, The World Journal of Post-Factory Photography. In
addition to what I've already written in this message, I could cite more
examples of faulty logic, sloppy methodology, erroneous conclusions, and
hasty generalizations that you've made in your publication. For whatever it
's worth, I don't think you're any better or worse than Anderson, Crawford,
and Scopick. You're not perfect or right 100% of the time, nor were they.
Don't throw stones if you're living in a glass house.
Best regards from Big Wonderful Wyoming,
Dave Rose
Cactus Cowboy
******
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:09 AM Z CST