Thanks for clarification; I see that I did mistake your point, sorry.
kt
On Jul 23, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Peter Marshall wrote:
> 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 07/23/06-12:15:47 PM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 08/31/06-12:23:48 PM Z CST