Re: palladium drydown and developer (albumen & collodion)

Katharine,

You misunderstand me completely. I'm not suggesting that the results of
the comparison should be kept private. Obviously things like the
exposure times for prints made by the different processes, the
densities, observations on tonality, print colour etc are things that
can be published without any breach of confidence, just as you can sell
the prints made using the method.

I think it simply good sense to discuss this comparison with Terry (if I
wanted to do it, I'd start by asking him for a free copy of the
instructions if I intended to publish.) I don't actually think there is
anything to be gained by discussing it here until the results are available.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@cix.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
>> On Jul 23, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Peter Marshall wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I imagine Terry might well be interested in such a comparison - and
>>> I suspect it would be something worth discussing with him off list
>>> rather than in public.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Peter,
>> I have to disagree with this suggestion. If Terry has made claims on
>> this list about his version of a process, then this list is exactly
>> the place for examinations of those claims to be aired. This is how
>> science works, by the public presentation of evidence that supports
>> or fails to support claims that have been made. It seems to me that
>> it makes more sense, if someone has information that would increase
>> the knowledge base of the list membership as a whole on this point,
>> to share it with all of us instead of simply quietly communicating it
>> to Terry. But I guess then we're back to what is the purpose of the
>> list, on which there seems to be some disagreement. I continue to
>> see the list as a place where people of good will share information
>> with each other with the goal of increasing the store of valid and
>> reliable information relating to the alt photo processes, as well as
>> a place where beginners can come and ask questions and get answers.
>> If claims that have been made can't be replicated by others, then
>> this is information that should be available to the whole group.
>
> Or, for that matter, if Terry's claims are supported by Loris's
> comparisons, then even moreso should that information be shared. Sorry
> if that didn't come out very clearly,
> Katharine.
>
>
Received on 07/23/06-11:53:43 AM Z