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

Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
 So I'll have to go to
> the library later to see what this looks like; it's hopeless from here.

And then I remembered the library is closed Wednesday, so maybe Friday.

>
> But Mark is right of course, you can't use this comparison of apples and
> oranges to draw any conclusions about the relative merits of glyoxal vs
> glutaraldehyde, because as Judy said earlier, there are just too many
> variables hanging out there.

Chris Anderson wrote:

I have extensively worked
> with it these last two years, as I was using glut and gly side by side with
> probably about 100 gum prints (large) of glyoxal with all the rest of the
> glut sized ones, as I was switching over and comparing.

Chris, I understood this statement to mean that you have a database of
100 side by side comparisons printing the same image on glutaraldehyde
and on glyoxal. But if you do have 100 side by side comparisons, or even
100 prints on glyoxal, then that's real data and that's what you should
be giving us here to make the case against glyoxal (assuming of course
that the side by side comparisons were printed on the same paper) rather
than this one-shot comparison that simply can't be interpreted since
the two prints are on different papers.

>From the 100 prints on glyoxal, you should be able to say x number out
of the 100 speckled, y yellowed and the yellow didn't come out; or
whatever you think is relevant from the data. If the comparisons aren't
all on the same paper, then break the data down by the paper type. It
would be really exciting to see this kind of data; most of us don't have
the time to put that much effort into testing anything.
Katharine
Received on Wed Sep 7 13:10:19 2005