On Apr 3, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> (Note to Terry: when I refer to gum, I always mean the specific
> substance known as gum arabic, or gum senegal, unless I refer
> specifically to another gum like xantham or tragacanth). To me it
> is not useful to construct a vague class of substances that "work"
> in a dichromated colloid process and call everything in this class
> "gum" whether it is gum or not; the only possible result would
> be confusion.
As an example of the confusion that can result from this practice:, I
had some correspondence with someone several years ago, who claimed
to be doing "gum printing" but who said things about how "gum"
behaves that seemed frankly improbable to me, given my understanding
and experience with gum. After a number of bewildered exchanges
back and forth, it turned out that this person was also of the
opinion that anything that "works" with a dichromated colloid process
should be called "gum," and that the "gum" he was using to make "gum
prints" was actually gelatin.
I can't think of any benefit that might be gained by calling things
"gum" that aren't gum, that could possibly outweigh the inevitable
confusion.
Katharine
Received on Tue Apr 4 00:40:12 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/01/06-11:10:23 AM Z CST