From: pete (temperaprint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 03/13/03-02:57:13 AM Z
Judy,
Get your facts right girl I did not write this Dick did. Very Sad !
>
> 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.
Oh dear
Pete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:25 PM Z CST