Re: Why Winsor & Newton?

oooookkkkk i'm outta here. i get enough fighting irl.
geesh

At 12:09 AM 5/31/2005, you wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2005, Robert M wrote:
>>Pre-Internet, we obtained information from books. Generally speaking. It was
>>less likely most books published would be inaccurate because writing a book
>>took time. These days, anyone can publish their book with effortless ease;
>>in many cases, it is not "peer reviewed." These days, anyone can create a
>>group or web site and nobody vets their data.
>
>Actually, it depends. My experience with books is that no matter how long
>they took to prepare, they can be just as full of wrong assumptions,
>unclear directions and what I call "seems logical disease" as the worst
>internet bumble -- and since there is still an *authority* to the print
>medium (and the glossy photos) that gives them a presumption of
>correctness that throws the reader off even more. Not to mention that
>should the author himself (and the errors that most readily come to mind
>are from "him"s) find an error, it can't be corrected until another
>edition which may never happen, but goes on radiating pain and confusion
>through nine lives and then it's "vintage" and even more "credible."
>
>Websites are another matter, to me mostly unknown, since as a rule, for
>numerous reasons, I don't go there. (At least a book has an editor who
>might occasionally pick up a defect of organization, if not of fact.)
>However, my experience in 11 years on this list is that when a mistake
>gets made it is going to be CORRECTED, sometimes corrected to death, but
>that's to err on the side of the angels. If I had a dollar for every
>error I've found in, even the vaunted KOL, I could, oh, buy another book.
>And that's a classic now, forever & ever "golden."
>
>Meanwhile, there's a problem that folks may bring on themselves, the
>expectation of a clear answer, formulas, protocols, that can be taken by
>rote, problem solved, for all questions. Sure for some questions...but in
>practice, every variable, from water to light source is a.... variable.
>
>Maybe not to the same extent in platinum, and iron/silver media, tho
>generalities probably don't hold across the board there, either... But,
>and I doubt many gum printers would dispute this, in gum printing EVERY
>variable is a factor. You can't just say this paper or that hardener or
>the other pigment, etc. each one -- at least in my tests -- can change the
>way everything else behaves. In other words it's always a combo, how this
>pigment works with that gum on such & such paper for instance.
>
>There is no substitute for the 21-step and variables test of your own full
>drill. A 21-step in time, like they say, saves 99.
>
>Oh, and about that gum printing in dye, good luck. It came up before on
>the list, for about 15 seconds. For one thing, dye sinks into the paper &
>doesn't release, unless you just tint really heavy goop, & maybe not even
>then. However, if you're going to print on non-paper, well, some new
>paints are actually dyes, or near dyes. Tho don't ask me which ones, I've
>forgotten. Try a 21-step.
>
>Judy
Received on Tue May 31 00:13:21 2005