failure notice

From: [email protected]
Date: 01/20/04-11:09:28 PM Z
Message-id: <200401210509.i0L59Vfr030885@spamf1.usask.ca>

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail26c.sbc-webhosting.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<shitjunkmail2003@yahoo.com>:
64.156.215.6 failed after I sent the message.
Remote host said: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry, your message to shitjunkmail2003@yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account is over quota. - mta194.mail.scd.yahoo.com

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <alt-photo-process-error@sask.usask.ca>
Received: from skyway.usask.ca (128.233.192.232)
        by mail26b.sbc-webhosting.com (RS ver 1.0.88vs) with SMTP id 4-0517391714;
        Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:08:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PROCESS-DAEMON.sask.usask.ca by sask.usask.ca
 (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30663) id <01L5N0MLTVRK8XIELK@sask.usask.ca>
 (original mail from zphoto@montana.net); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:06:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.sask.usask.ca by sask.usask.ca
 (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30663) id <01L5N0MLRMRK8XINP9@sask.usask.ca> for
 alt-photo-process-l-expand@process.sask.usask.ca
 (ORCPT alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca); Tue,
 20 Jan 2004 23:06:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from spamf2.usask.ca ([128.233.150.98])
 by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30663)
 with ESMTP id <01L5N0MLOHRG8XJTYN@sask.usask.ca> for
 alt-photo-process-l-expand@process.sask.usask.ca
 (ORCPT alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca); Tue,
 20 Jan 2004 23:06:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from montana.net (be1.montanavision.com [216.146.116.1])
        by spamf2.usask.ca (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0L56dNi014852 for
 <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>; Tue,
 20 Jan 2004 23:06:40 -0600 (envelope-from zphoto@montana.net)
Received: from your6bvpxyztoq ([12.152.8.226]) by montana.net ; Tue,
 20 Jan 2004 22:05:34 -0700
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:06:01 -0500
From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
Subject: CITATIONS
To: Alt List <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Message-id: <008901c3dfdc$4dd41650$e208980c@your6bvpxyztoq>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Rcpt-To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
X-PMX-Version: 4.1.1.86173
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=''
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
List-Id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
X-Loop-Detect:1

Katharine,
     I quote my post below, and I stand by my citations:

I said, "A couple authors in books said they didn't print in the summer
because their
prints were "muddy" which I presume to mean either lower contrast, or
perhaps a higher incidence of staining possible, even, because of the
increased receptivity of the paper to more moisture (Livick being one)."

Excuse me if the written quote was in Livick's WEB manual, a precursor of
his PRINTED manual of 2000. HE was the one who SAID it, for gosh sakes!! It
was in print! However, the newer printed manual says, below, this info, as
I have stated, verbatim, p. 39:

"Livick also says in his book to dry emulsion for 1/2 hour to 45 min, no
longer, or emulsion will start to set in the paper and highlights will be
muddy".

Then I said, "Blacklow says don't print in high humidity because the
dichromate
soaks up moisture from the air and become less sensitive--either that is her
conjecture or she got it from someone else."

This is on page 127 of the 3rd edition, 2000, Focal Press. Perhaps you do
not have this edition, but the earlier one. Just because you do not find it
in your book does NOT make my quoting it invalid! It is, in fact, in front
of my face. If you don't believe me I will fax you a copy of the page.

Then I said: "Crawford says heat and humidity
increase dark reaction. Arnow says gum is not very sensitive when wet
(Gassan, Kosar, and others disagree) and in higher humidity, use a shorter
exposure--the seeming contradiction possibly being explained away by dark
reaction, perhaps? So, the humidity factor is out there in the lit and in
practice but what exactly is true, your guess is as good as mine."

The reason I brought these points up is that Mark Nelson asked a valid
question about humidity. I answered that it was not a problem in my book
except it changed my practice a bit. I was not agreeing with any of these
authors, but also not disagreeing. For you or I or Judy or Keith or Jack or
Sam or kingdom come to say any of this info is invalid because we ourselves
don't experience it is a CROCK. Why in heavens name is our "practice" more
valid than theirs?

Speaking of being "cross", your insinuation I was fudging my sources was
incredibly rude.
Chris
Received on Tue Jan 20 23:09:50 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/02/04-09:49:59 AM Z CST