Re: sizing and gum reference images

Jack,
You're right of course, and well said. This is a very busy week for me,
but I'll see what I can do.

This was something I always intended to do on my own website, show a lot
of mistakes along with the solutions for them, so that learning printers
could compare their failed results to the pictures and see how to fix
the problem. But I haven't got around to doing that yet, and this would
be a way to start a piece of that project. Later,
Katharine

Jack Brubaker wrote:
>
> Katherine,
>
> I think you are right that one of the uses of a group of images of gum
> errors would be to help beginners identify their problem and to be able to
> look at how others have solved that problem. You're right that there have
> been very different effects called speckles on the list. You have been very
> clear with your illustrations on your site but others have different
> parameters of paper and size, different techniques, and different
> definitions of terms. Let's put some images together and see how many
> specific effect we have and then worry about naming them. Speaking for
> myself I'd be delighted to have you name the effects and then open it to
> discussion. I hope you will contribute your images because you are most
> likely the person who has done the most to document gum effects, most of us
> have been throwing them away without a thought.
>
> You wrote
> I mean, who
> > would get to decide how to group the different examples and what they
> > should be called? Since we seem to work in parallel universes, it's
> > hard to imagine that we could come to an agreement on any of that.
>
> You may be right. But we won't know without trying. If we can do it we could
> really advance the discussion by leaps and bounds. It may be true that some
> effects are, due to multiple variables, will prove too inconclusive to
> define (your parallel universe comment). If we only define some of the terms
> and effects we will be better off for it.
>
> I look forward to the possibilities, and hopefully your help.
>
> Jack
>
> > From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
> > Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:11:27 +0000
> > To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > Subject: Re: "speckling" v "staining " (was New Orleans/glut)
> >
> > Jack Brubaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Chris, Judy, Catherine, et all,
> >>
> >> If we are to make real progress in understanding sizes, papers, and gum
> >> methods it seems we will have to resolve the terms used to describe various
> >> aberrant results. Clearly writing about it is continuing to be confusing and
> >> misleading. Remember the quote something like "writing about art is like
> >> dancing about architecture" (at the moment I can't remember who wrote that).
> >> We need a visual reference for the terms and conditions we are referring to.
> >> Does someone have a site where images could be posted from various workers
> >> where similar effects could be grouped together and given a clear name. I'm
> >> sorry to be proposing such a thing and not offering to do it myself, but it
> >> seems the time has come to have a visual tool to refine the discussion and
> >> move us foreword.
> >
> >
> > Hi Jack,
> > As the one person in this discussion who has actually shown visually
> > exactly what I mean by "speckling" and by "staining" I'm not quite
> > sure why this admonition is addressed to me. But certainly I agree that
> > we need visual aids to discussion, and that's partly why I put up my
> > website, so I could point to various things there to help people
> > visualize what I'm talking about in discussions here. I'm certainly the
> > one regular contributor who very often points to a visual example of
> > what I'm talking about.
> >
> > I think your idea is good in theory, and I certainly would like to see
> > what other people besides myself mean by things they describe, but I
> > find the thought of the idea in practice rather amusing. I mean, who
> > would get to decide how to group the different examples and what they
> > should be called? Since we seem to work in parallel universes, it's
> > hard to imagine that we could come to an agreement on any of that. The
> > speckling I've seen, I've seen enough times to recognize it and know
> > what causes it. From the discussion, it sounds like the speckling Judy
> > and Chris are talking about are different from mine and from each
> > other. It almost seems like each of us would have a completely different
> > set of speckles, with different perceived causes, none recognizable by
> > any of the others. But perhaps this would be useful in creating a
> > taxonomy of speckles, which beginning printers could compare their
> > speckles to and follow the recommendations of the person who provided
> > that particular speckling example. But I'm not sure it would achieve the
> > stated purpose of coming to some agreement on basic terms.
> > Katharine
> >
> >
Received on Tue Sep 6 19:28:38 2005