Re: tonal inversion and pigment loads

On Jan 27, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Tom Sobota wrote:

>
> Two months ago, when Joe Smigiel started this thread with his
> observation about inversion, you said in a post that you had never
> seen this effect. Sixty days later including holidays you have a
> definition written in stone, or at least in a web page. Amazing, to
> say the least...

Well, you know how it is, when you have no other life but gum, there
*are* no holidays.

That was a joke, by the way.

I haven't set anything in stone, I've just said this is how it looks
to me, and no one is showing me anything that looks any different.
All I was saying is that we are working from different definitions of
pigment stain, so when I say it's pigment stain and you say it's not,
we're talking past each other. That's all I was saying. I think it's
great, all the observations and all the thinking about this; I'm not
trying to stop the discussion and wouldn't want to. All I was saying
is that we're not communicating because we're defining things
differently.

But as a matter of fact, I've spent quite a lot of time testing and
thinking and making observations about this in the last two months,
because it interested me.
Katharine
Received on Fri Jan 27 22:38:06 2006