Re: Adjacency Effects Again

From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Adjacency Effects Again
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:06:22 -0400 (EDT)

> Well, sorry if this seems grandiose, but another thing I proved in about
> 10 minutes is that at least half the "literature" about so-called
> adjacency effects is wrong... That is, in most sources until very
> recently, if not still, the so-called "Mackie Line" in sabatier effect was
> called an adjacency effect, due to bromide drag & depletion &
> yatyatyatya...

I'd suggest you read about adjacency effect (aka border effect) and
Sabatier effect before proving that you are confused between these and
somewhat abused term Mackie line... Obviously adjacency effect we are
discussing here has nothing to do with Sabatier effect.

> The way to prove that's wrong -- or one of the ways -- is to do adjacent
> exposures of the same amount on developer-wet paper and develop, You get
> "mackie lines" between EQUAL grays, so they're hardly by-products
> transgressing.

This is another piece of evidence that you are confused between
adjacency effect of development and reexposure or Sabatier effect.
And,

> grey mackie lines, black mackie lines on white and on grey, as well as a
> print with dandy grey mackie lines from a developer with ADDED
> hydroquinone... although one "authority" had explained that it's the
> depletion of hydroquinone that enhances adjacency effects.

thereby proving that your previous statement about adjacency effect
and hydroquinone is indeed irrelevant.

> Of course I know little if anything about the effects under discussion
> here, except that YOU CAN NOT TRUST THEM. They are written by experts
> theorizing in front of their typewriters, as is so much else.

I suggest to check what you say based on your own criticisms before
presenting here...

--
Ryuji Suzuki
"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." (Bob Dylan 2000)