From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/12/03-09:11:27 PM Z
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, pete wrote:
> Somewhere back in my old brain cells is a memory trace
> > using plain water color pigment and dichromate to make gum prints and I
> > believe it was by reference to Zimmermann. Water color pigments in tubes
> > used to use -- and some still do -- gum Arabic as a binder. Enough in
> > there to make gum prints. Now that I am hearing about Zimmermann successes
> > I believe my failure in early 70's was that I did not take him at his word
> > and use too much gum. This even though I had reduced the amount of gum I
> > had been using by 80% or more and proceeded to use the blotters. It was hot
I have got a distinct memory trace of the hoo ha about the
Anderson/Scopick "gum-pigment ratio test", or rather my pointing out that
it was nonsense. Its premise, that you need a certain (large) amount of
gum arabic added to your (tube) paint to prevent staining, seems now to
have gone down the memory hole. But at the time, Pete, you said you'd
"thought about it" and decided it was right. On top of which, saints
preserve us, you forwarded my heresy to Scopick himself & then his reply
to the list... (Not a pretty sight.)
>From what I've read, in his day Zimmerman got a mixed reception, and the
fact that a process was not generally adopted is often a major indicator.
But on top of science, chemistry, reason, first-hand testimony, and the
rest of "the literature," it surely puts paid to the great GPR test...
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:25 PM Z CST