On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>
> As far as not seeing the stain issue, I apologize that it isn't
> visually clearer...the letters of the weakest exposure are
> basically the same color as the pigment stain, but it may be that I
> should take that image off the web because it isn't clear enough,
> or redo it to show it more clearly.
Chris, let me try to understand this better. There's an overall
something across all the letter exposures; I couldn't decide whether
it was stain or whether it was a scanning artifact, but it seems to
be evenly-distributed across all the exposures. Is this what you're
calling the stain from which the least-exposed letters cannot be
distinguished? Or is there some other stain that occurs only with
the weakest exposure, that's simply not visible on the jpeg? In the
first case, I would argue that the image doesn't support the
statement that shorter exposures have more tendency to stain, as the
stain is constant across all exposures. In the second case, I would
agree that you need to redo the visual to make the effect more visible.
Either way, you still have the problem of the step tablets above,
where the only visible stain is in the most-exposed tablet,
contradicting the statement that shorter exposures have "a tendency
to stain more readily because there is no hardened gum to trap the
pigment and keep it from sinking into the paper fibers." Even if
the letter exposures, properly presented, would support the
statement, the contradictory evidence of the step tablets creates a
problem for asserting the statement as fact.
Katharine
Received on 07/13/06-02:24:27 PM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 08/31/06-12:23:48 PM Z CST