Re: gum over platinum

Date: 02/09/04-08:20:42 AM Z
Message-id: <>


heheheheh thanks for sharing that, it's priceless!!!!

In a message dated 2/9/04 5:56:47 AM, writes:

> 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 08:21:29 2004

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