From: Bob and Carla (bb333@earthlink.net)
Date: 01/02/03-10:00:44 AM Z
Judy,
I think this is a good opportunity to ask for a Chem. Glossary or
primer of terms and measures for the final issue of PF. This would be
invaluable to those of use that are not seasoned Chemists. I would
also wish for a basic primer of scales and measurements that would
define minimal units of accurate measures, recommended brands of
scales, etc. This might take a little community effort, in that the
real knowledgeable among us would make their contributions, and
someone other than Judy (who is swamped already) could shoulder the
task of taking the various lists and contributions and editing and
compiling them into a condensed package. Or maybe it would be easier
for one expert to cover terms and measures, another to define basics
of sound methodolgy, another to make a list of formulaic alternatives
of the various salts, oxalates, fixatives and clearing agents, etc.
I know that this sounds like a giant textbook, but I don't mean
that... What I am thinking of, which would be invaluable for the last
issue of PF, is a Primer of Basics; terms, measure, methods, succinct
and specific to the Alternative Photographic Processes as a basic part
of the PF collection.
Is this just wishfull thinking?
PS: I just received Jack Fulton's list of terms...and this is exactly
what I would like to see in the PF Journal...succinct, but with the
other details, like units of measure, limits of accuracy, adequate
scales, in short and Alt Process primer of units of measure and
glossary of terms, etc.
Robert
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> I may need some opinion here, more than FACT...
>
> I've been trying to figure out (talking to alt photogs, contributors, et
> al) why we're supposed to put those numbers with the names of chemicals,
> like ferric (3) citrate, or maybe it's ferric (III) citrate.
>
> I find it confusing (OK, it's new since I had chemistry in 10th grade),
> and as far as I can tell doesn't add any information you don't have in the
> word forms. Am I any more likely to get right chemical with those
> numbers? My catalogs don't have them, just the names.
>
> It strikes me therefore -- ALSO the folks I talked to -- that it
> complicates the statement (or formula), sort of browbeating you by saying
> what's already said -- or a tautology, if you will, which is considered
> bad writing style.
>
> Ie, ferric means one thing & ferrous another, and if someone confuses
> them -- will those numbers unconfuse them ?
>
> HOWEVER, I may be missing something -- could be those numbers are
> important, and cutting them out would be bad & I shouldn't do it ?
>
> So -- (a) is it special information?. (b) do you find it helpful?, (c) do
> you mind if it's not there?
>
> any advice/comments appreciated...
>
> Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST