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

Katherine,

You are right that there are many variables that we will never nail down.
But why don't we not go there for now. I would imagine that yours and Chris'
results with different paper and sizes can stand on their own within the
bounds of your separate workflows. Let's start by showing examples of things
like the speckles, pigment stain, too much pigment, over exposure, under
exposure, failed size, fish eyes, and dichromate stain, clear and common
errors that gum printers experience. I think we can name those and then move
on to subtleties and more contentious subjects later (if we have the stomach
for it by then).

Jack

> From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:46:21 +0000
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: "speckling" v "staining " (was New Orleans/glut) SEE SCANS
>
> See, Jack, this was my fear in the beginning, when I said that I think
> it's a great idea in theory but I don't see how it could produce the
> desired effect of agreement on basic terms, because there's no way gum
> printers are ever going to agree on basic terms.
>
> Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Rives has been brushed and sprayed to death with no budge. Nada. It
>> is a throw-out in my book.
>
> Yes, I would agree with that.
>
>>
>> Second, the fact that you call it garden variety stain supports my original
>> point--that gly sized Rives does this, and that glut sized FAEW doesn't. So
>> we actually agree!! But probably I am missing something.
>
> Well, yes, you're missing the point that in my shop, gly sized Rives
> doesn't do this at all. So it doesn't make sense to state, as a
> categorical fact, that "gly-sized Rives does this" since obviously it
> isn't a generally-observed rule.
>
>>
>> Third, the "grey" speckles are none other than shadows created from scanning
>> bumpy paper. There are no grey speckles in the originals.
>
> I wondered about this, but since you said speckles, and these were the
> only things in the scan that I would call speckles, I thought maybe that
> was what you were talking about.
>
>
>>
>> My point was that glut was a preferable size to prevent this and so I'm
>> happy with it. If your Rives/glyoxal paper never stains--carry on. But you
>> don't size, anyway, and don't get stain, so it is a moot point, correct?
>
> Well, not exactly. This would be like saying that since I'm not black,
> I shouldn't care about what happens to the black folks in New Orleans.
> My interest is not in glyoxal vs glut per se; I don't care one way or
> another about that. My interest in this has to do with data
> interpretation, with drawing conclusions from data. If you would just
> say, "I love glut, I think it's great" you and I would have no
> disagreement at all, since no proof is required to state a personal
> preference. But when you try to make a case for glut by making
> categorical statements about glyoxal, then there is a level of proof
> required, and when there are available counter-observations that don't
> support your categorical statements, then as a statistician I will feel
> compelled to say something.
> Katharine
>
>
Received on Mon Sep 12 15:16:30 2005