Re: Adjacency Effects Again

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Ryuji Suzuki wrote:
> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
> Subject: Re: Adjacency Effects Again
> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
>
> 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.

Oh my dear Ryuji, please read more carefully : I'm not saying they do
have anything to do with each other, I'm saying it has been *said* that
they do -- in fact that they are the same. Which of course *IS*
ridiculous on the face of it -- but so was the gum pigment ratio test that
held the field in thrall so many years.

I have probably 5 and possibly more books on my shelf that EXACTLY
describe mackie line in SABATIER as due to adjacency effects and/or
bromide drag, one of them even with diagrams, like pictures of faeries in
the garden. In fact an early edition of Beaumont Newhall says it too.
And also in fact, "Mr. Sabatier", aka Wm Jolly, who has spent years
accruing complicated theories to explain the phenomenon (or phenomena)
of reversal, did that for years as well. (He finally modified or qualified
his statements -- though not sufficiently, IMO.)

Another error these books make in describing Sabatier is saying that it
happens when partially developed SG material is exposed to white light.
I've done it with a flash exposure after a main exposure *before* any
development at all... on Kodak dye transfer matrix, & have read of
similar results with other material. I'm making an analogy to the fact
that a lot of theory is overstated, based on certain observed phenomena
perhaps, but willy nilly applied to all that begin with the same letter.

> > 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,

I am not at all confused... You are confusing, or mistaking, my meaning
through not reading carefully (to give you the benefit of the doubt). I'm
saying that for years Sabatier Mackie was attributed to adjacency, that
easy proof of its being something else was overlooked and/or ignored.

Perhaps I could have stressed more that I made an analogy -- an analogy --
to the conclusions and THEORIES given about adjacency effects in film
development, to suggest that they could be equally inadequate. Again, my
point was that they are NOT equivalent, but were STATED to be equivalent.

Then I add the purely personal opinion (not yet printed in any book) that
much of all THEORY cannot be confidently relied on. And, given how
entirely the brilliant Ryuji has bobbled my meaning -- I can but sigh:
What hope is there for any of it ?

Judy
Received on Fri Apr 9 20:46:49 2004