gum over platinum

From: Christina Z. Anderson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/09/04-05:43:03 AM Z
Message-id: <003701c3ef02$0a0fb340$6101a8c0@your6bvpxyztoq>

Good morning all!
     As I feel my butt getting wider and wider, sitting there as microfilm
after microfilm of the BJP wisks before my eyes, hours upon hours
(sympathize with me here--I figure I've scanned to date 17,000 pages; I'm
developing a head twitch)...I do occasionally come across interesting
tidbits. Another couple deaths from potassium bichromate, one again caused
by confusion at the drugstore with potassium bicarbonate in a cough syrup,
the other by a worker thinking it was a mug of beer, drinking it bottoms up
(they drink beer in the factory?).
     Last night I got a wonderful blurb that'll apply to Clay Harmon, Kerik
Kouklis, Stuart Melvin, and their ilk :):
     It was a paragraph about gum over platinum; first of all, the writer
disparaged we "school of mucid photography" people (he says gum isn't
photography, actually). Then he goes on to say that these photographers are
using the *beautiful* platinum process to rescue themselves out of their
difficulties of obtaining a satisfactory range of gradation. I quote: "We
are," (note the royal "we") therefore, not surprised that they should turn
to platinum to obtain delicate half-tone or deep shadows." Further, "We
fail to understand why bichomated (sic) gum should be combined with it,
unless the photographer is compelled to help out an unsatisfactory
negative." The writer asks, why not just apply paint with a brush, instead
of juggling with photography? "Is it necessary that there should be a
scapegoat to bear the burden of their sins?"
Chris, lol
Received on Mon Feb 9 05:52:47 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:08 AM Z CST