Re: Foxlee Gum Process

From: Dave Soemarko ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/15/04-07:41:56 PM Z
Message-id: <010c01c46ad6$14232650$0500a8c0@wds>

> Dave and all,
> I think this is where the dialogue foundered, on the assumption that
> this is like dye transfer. I've just found my book on color photography
> and read the section on dye transfer, and I can't think of any way that
> what Marion did could reasonably be called "basically a dye transfer" or
> more generally, of any way that dye transfer provides a useful analogy
> for what we're talking about here. This just reinforces my earlier
> suspicion that we're talking about completely different things that
> don't have any necessary logical connection to each other.

I forgot whether I have replied to this message or not, but concerning dye
transfer, it is of course very different if you consider only the working
method. If you consider what you get after the long process, however, you
will notice the similarity. In dye transfer, what you end at the end (or the
2nd step before the end) is a gelatin matrix hardened proportionally to the
image. Then you soak the matrix in dye, then you transfer. In that sense it
is similar to Marion process.

I haven't had a chance to check out the article yet. And of course we don't
know whether Galinsky understood Marion completely. When Galinsky said
"squeezed," could Marion mean "squeeze-ed?" And if so, was it done dry or
wet? If it is wet, then we *basically* have a dye-transfer process, except
that it is a di-transfer process (di = dichromate).

Received on Thu Jul 15 19:42:59 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/13/04-09:01:11 AM Z CST