Re: Foxlee Gum Process

Dave Soemarko wrote:
>
> Katherine,
>
> I don't think any of us is interested just in right or wrong, but we are
> interested in the image making process or system.

 There is limited time in
> everyone's life, so we probably cannot do all tests that we like.
>
> We cannot ask Gallinsky now, but if she is right, and a gelatin coated
> cannot make image while a gelatin squeezed can, she could easily try to put
> some pressure on the coated gelatin and see if she could make an image out
> of her squeezing.

This is true, and she should have done that before drawing any
conclusion, there's no doubt about it. It would save a lot of haranguing
about it now for sure; if she'd done that and not got an image, there
was definitely either something wrong with her experimental procedure,
or there was something wrong with her conclusion.

>
> I am interested in your thinking process. Since Gallinsky was trying to
> duplicate Marion's experiment but she poured gelatin on it and couldn't get
> an image. Now, without doing actual test, with all the information we have
> today, do you think if she squeezed on the sandwich (to give it some
> mechanical action), she would get an image? This might be completely
> different from the original experiment, but I am curious if you are inclined
> to think that she would.

I truly have no idea. I think that she thought she would, but I don't
have an opinion one way or the other. She had already rejected Marion's
explanation (and yours, if I'm reading you right) that it's a reaction
that occurs between the remaining dichromate and the new colloid, for
the same reason that I have rejected it, which is that this explanation
predicts the colloid being hardened in unexposed areas, just as in any
dark reaction. So I guess pressure is what she thought she was left
with, the speculation that the pressure forces the insoluble and soluble
colloids to intermingle in a mechanical way, rather than a chemical
reaction taking place. I'm not sure how that would work, but perhaps the
soluble colloid that had been ground into the insoluble colloid wouldn't
wash away as quickly as the rest of the soluble colloid, and therefore
the image would be left. Like I've said, I'm not invested in that
conclusion, but it makes more sense to me than the one that relies on a
dark reaction that would harden the colloid in unexposed areas.

I think we've kind of gotten off the point here in arguing about
Galinsky's experiment: the point being that regardless of Galinsky's
exeriment, there hasn't been an explanation proposed yet for these
observations that makes sense and that predicts that the image, and only
the image, will remain after the dark reaction.
Katharine

 
Katharine

>
> Dave S
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Foxlee Gum Process
>
> > Look, if anyone's interested in the right or wrong of this, just try it
> > yourself, with and without pressure, and see what happens. I'm not at
> > all invested in Galinsky's being right, I just think her logic makes
> > sense and seems to be supported by her experimental findings. If you
> > think otherwise, try it and see what happens, and let us know. But you
> > need to have some way of measuring the change in the gelatin that's
> > added afer exposure, other than just a subjective observation that it
> > "seems" less soluble after having pressure exerted on it, because that
> > would be true even if Galinsky's conclusion is right.
> > Katharine
> >
> >
Received on Thu Jun 24 14:55:43 2004