Re: Adjacency Effects Again

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/12/04-02:14:51 AM Z
Message-id: <>

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Ryuji Suzuki wrote:

> You made another posting earlier in the clear context of adjacency
> effect entirely based on your experience, and now making it clear that
> you were referring to the Sabatier effect.

> And you went on like WRONG, can't trust them, etc. This one is fallacy
> of hasty generalization applied to theories and literature in
> general...

Actually Ryuji, it's very difficult to tell you what I meant and why .
because you've so determined to tell me what I REALLY meant, tho without
the why.

But a propos of this very topic (and nothing to do with Sabatier), I
looked something up Sunday morning (in Mees) and every other sentence was
"it is assumed that," "may be understood as," "makes it appear probable
that," "according to this point of view," "suggests that" and the like...
You however, not only read my mind (which might suggest that you waste
your talents in photography) but have sources -- James I think it was --
that report with utter certainty and reliability. This is actually quite

I can't comment on James specifically, having given away my only copy when
I needed more room on the shelf -- but here exactly is the kind of thing I
talk about -- that I have found few if any "authorities" free of. I
mention this one now because it's fresh in my mind and I'm still
aghast...(I didn't think any of it could shock me any more. It did.)
>From Neblette, "Photography Principles and Practice," 4th edition,1942,
and also yesterday, Sunday.

It's a paragraph on Fresson. The opening is rather dismissive, and in
fact wrong, saying it's of Belgian origin. Then, "it has attracted but a
small following," which may have been, or seemed, true at the time. But
after a few sentences of process description the paragraph concludes: "The
image has a pronounced grain or texture which, however, is not displeasing
with certain subjects." This sentence has a footnote to Mauret, in
American Annual of Photography, 1929, which I have at hand. Not only does
Mauret not say anything about grain, or texture, or "certain subjects,"
what he does say about the quality of the print is the direct opposite,
namely "exquisite tonal beauty," and "wonderful velvety character."

In other words, that's not an error or omission in testing. It's a lie.
Now I assume that your James has not done everything he writes about
himself, but is quoting other "authorities." They may every one of them
be a genius who cannot tell a lie, as may he, but (I add, out of the
kindness of my heart) before quoting any authority as gospel, it might be
a good idea to cross check, follow a few footnotes, etc. -- and try not to
be outraged if someone else raises the issue.

Received on Mon Apr 12 02:15:53 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/14/04-02:14:31 PM Z CST