Re: Glyoxal?

Hi again,

this is just an idea that came to me after reading Judy and Christina. There
are so many variables at play in each part of any process that it is
basically certain that our experiments aren't repeatable by other most of
the time if not always. I'm not saying that with the intention of being rude
to anyone on this list but I'm convinced that most of the time most
experiments are mostly useful to the one who did them and most probably
useless most of the time to others. I think it would save all us a great
deal of time if we didn't have to repeat all experiments on our own all the
time because most of you I'm sure already know that others experiments have
proven themselves not very useful so many time in the past and know you do
your own.

That doesn't have to be the case or at least we could try to improve the
usefulness of our tests probably both for ourselves and to others. I don't
pretend to have a clear and definite answer to all this but I'd surely like
to try finding a better way. I would go further then that, we could also
devise some scheme to split the workload. Before that, I think we should
address the first problematic and I think a potential avenue of solution
would be to agree on some form of standardisation but as I said earlier I
don't care who comes up with (a)the solution or what it is as long as we all
agree on something and that it works.

I just hope this doesn't sound to awful,
Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Glyoxal?

>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> > Your tests prove that glyoxal does yellow, but not always. My tests
prove
> > that glyoxal does yellow, too, but in degrees. I would therefore hope
that
> > our tests that we have spent so much time on are worthwhile to ourselves
> > personally and to others on this list. How else would we develop a
database
>
> (etc.)
>
> Before we abandon the principle of cause & effect, a suggestion:
>
> I found that every alkali I tested turned glyoxal yellow or orange sooner
> or later, very or somewhat. And we know that MOST (if not all)
> contemporary art papers are buffered, that is, stoked with alkali to
> counter the acid effects of air, or rain, or water, or more probably the
> nasty chemicals used in making the paper or the water the factory uses.
>
> So it could be the paper buffering that causes the yellowing. Why don't
> all art papers yellow all the time in glyoxal? Possibly the water supply.
> Most of us use tapwater from different sources -- so they're different.
> There's also the "pump house" where civil servants add different
> ingredients according to season and weather, needs of the moment &
> theories of the state legislature.... So our summer water may be different
> from our winter water, etc. etc. etc.
>
> Should a day come when I have time for more tests, I'd use the pH pen to
> test pH of paper, and then test pH of the water. We do know that some
> water sources are very alkaline (they can bleach your cyano overnight).
> That might also yellow your unrinsed glyoxal paper. But some water might
> be relatively acid, & counter that tendency of glyoxal. I'd also test tap
> water for development versus distilled for both mixing and developing...
> which might also shed light. Or dark.
>
> Plus art papers vary batch to batch & by the season they're made -- I'm
> told that's because the water they're processed in changes... Friend told
> me some of his paper customers only buy paper (for platinum) made in, I
> think it was winter, but we don't know when the paper we buy from Sam's
> art store, or online, or find in a drawer was made.
>
> The only trouble with this theory of course is that some of us watching
> this have found our STUDIO is consistent, even as the seasons change. I
> have no theory for that.
>
> Judy
Received on Mon Jan 16 22:46:04 2006