Re: gum dot test - Crawford

This list is great for putting things in perspective. I've been thinking
for the last few days that having a friend in the hospital severely
injured because of a bad accident she had in a car I had sold her
earlier that day was pretty bad (if I've seemed especially distracted or
muddled lately, that would be why) but then I log on and realize things
could actually be worse: there could be another round of the pigment
test war.

BTW, to be perfectly clear, the car didn't actually have anything to do
with the accident, other than that it was a very small car and she was
probably hurt worse than she would have been if her boyfriend had been
driving her BMW under the influence and crashed into a bridge abutment.
But still, at a time like this, one thinks about how things might have
been different if one had done different things, like remember the rule
never to sell a car to a friend.

No, I'm not going to say anything about the pigment test; I know when
I'm well off.

Katharine

Giovanni Di Mase wrote:
>
> You may want to loose a tube by empting it and weighting.
> Giovanni
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Brewer
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:23 PM
> Subject: gum dot test - Crawford
>
> Hello list
>  
> I'm about to do the dot test en masse as on page 211 in
> Keepers of the Light. Watercolour pigment is given in length
> of 3.8cm or 1 1/2" but there is no mention of tube weight.
> Pigments I want too test range from 5ml (0.17 US fl oz) to
> 37ml (1.25 US fl oz) and the exit holes of the tubes vary in
> diameter, so a 3.8cm length doesn't mean much. Can anyone
> enlighten me on either the tube weight Crawford used or give
> me a sample weight as a starting point.
>  
> Many thanks
>  
> John.
Received on Fri Aug 5 12:43:15 2005