Re: old literatures

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Ryuji Suzuki wrote:

Judy wrote:
>
> > In my own tests of cyanotype toners, for instance, not one single formula
> > worked as given in old books -- yet apparently still cut & pasted in our
> > time, for instance into Keepers of light (among others) and from there
> > into "Photographic Possibilities" and from there on into infinity.
> > (Ditto for the great GPR test.)

Ryuji replied:

> Well, in silver gelatin world where people have only "limited" choice
> of films, papers and chemicals (I think we got plenty), there are
> always some chemical addicts who are bored with what's on market now,
> and dig old literatures and find exotic formulae that are dropped from
> current practice for good reasons. Some use developing agents that are
> no longer used (for good reasons), some formulae that don't work with
> today's material, some that were intended to make up for the
> shortcommings of old materials that we no longer have, etc. Well, you
> can believe all those crap if you want but just don't tell me those
> are better stuff.

Ryuji, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying anything
relevant to your "reply" -- in fact I'm saying almost the opposite -- that
I went through the actual original vintage literature -- old British
Journals of Photography, early Photographic Facts and Formulas, and other
pre 1900 formularies and manuals, testing what actual live authentic
authoritative vintage people actually used and published. My surmise,
which I have stated & illustrated elsewhere, was that they don't work for
us, perhaps in part because materials have changed, but more often because
(my tests showed) each of them worked for ONE PARTICULAR set of
conditions and no others -- although not having the internet or other easy
communication, that was apparently not understood.

In other words, the worker extrapolated from his practice a generality
that didn't apply.

I suppose it's hardly worth mentioning, since you clearly know everything
already, that I never claimed that "those" (whether "those" refers to new
or old materials is not clear) were "better stuff." In fact I can't even
guess what I said that permitted you to entertain that notion. So now I
begin to wonder if the other "stuff" you're saying here with equal
"authority" is any more accurately interpreted and stated...

Meanwhile, about that "liver of sulfur"... I have at least 5 books that
define it as potassium sulfide, as do at least two present day chemical
houses. For instance, Cassell's Cyclopaedia of Photography (1911), which
perhaps you have heard of, says,

POTASSIUM SULFIDE
Synonyms, liver of sulphur, sulphurated potash, potassium trisulphide,
K2S3, Molecular weight 174. It consists of amorphous masses with the
colour of liver and is obtained by fusing together sulphur and potassium
carbonate. It is very deliquescent, and absorbs carbonic acid from the
air and gives off sulphuretted hydrogen. It is used to precipitate silver
sulphide from spent "hypo" baths. Its old name was potassa sulphurata.

=============================

Perhaps, if your current information is reliable, the term or the material
has changed in meaning or usage. Fair enough. But my own words did not
change in meaning (at least not until you changed them).

Judy
Received on Sun Nov 2 17:12:57 2003