Re: "speckling" v "staining " (was New Orleans/glut)

Jack,
Great idea.
I sent some images to Darryl (thanks, Darryl) but have to await Mark sending
scans of the two Stouffers to Darryl to see speckling, unless I can find a
speckled image amongst my stuff.
I sent an image of measles, an image of sizing melting, a comparison of
cyanotype on glut and gly, and an image of yellowed paper from glyoxal.
However, JUDYYYYYY!!!
Today a student brought in some cyanotypes on BFK and lo and behold, they
had WHITE speckles!!! I saw them with my own eyes! Yes, they are the size
of the grain I am talking about that is stained. No, I have never seen that
before in my work. But I was so thrilled to actually see white speckles for
the first time. I will have to scan one and send to Darryl, too.
The end,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Brubaker" <jack@jackbrubaker.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: "speckling" v "staining " (was New Orleans/glut)

>
>
> 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.
>
> This is not meant as a criticism of those of you putting so much effort
> into
> trying to clarify this on the list just as a suggestion of the next step.
>
> Jack Brubaker
>
>
Received on Tue Sep 6 20:39:03 2005