From: PhotoGecko Austin ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/21/04-12:24:43 AM Z
Message-id: <>




"The Academy will perish
upon its well intended sword"
                                --Renoir (I don't remember where--look it up)

"I thought this was a polite conversation, not scholarship! "
                                -- Woody Allen (yet to be spoken. . . but soon)

"What we have here, Luke, is a failure to communicate."
                                --does this really NEED a citation?

"Someone said that you said that you thought you might love me."
                                --my wife Sarah, a year before we married

"Language fails. Always. Language fails."
                                -- E. H.

"Never, ever, reduce any intelligent thought to writing."
                                -- Voltaire

"It was all just straw."
                                --Thomas Aquinas

"I tried. . . "
                                --Wally, my best friend in 3rd grade

'night, all.


On Tuesday, January 20, 2004, at 11:06 PM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:

> 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 Wed Jan 21 00:24:47 2004

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