Re: Foxlee Gum Process

From: Dave Soemarko ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/24/04-01:31:06 PM Z
Message-id: <005c01c45a21$cb9b7500$0500a8c0@W>

> > What it seems to me you are arguing is that Marion got a dark reaction
> > and Galinksy didn't, because Galinsky didn't have enough dichromate and
> > moisture left to produce a dark reaction.
> But this doesn't even work, because if the unexposed gelatin didn't wash
> away, as you were arguing earlier, then Marion shouldn't have got an
> image if it's the dark reaction that's responsible for the image; the
> gelatin should have just insolubilized throughout.

Why? As I made comparison with dye transfer, the exposed gelatin sheet now
has free dichromate in inverse proportion to the exposure. The remaining
dichromated in the exposed area, trapped under hardened gelatin, is probably
less useful than the unexposed area.

> As to exposing to maximum insolubility, perhaps we mean something
> different by this. When I expose a print, I expose to maximum
> insolubility, so I assume that others do the same, and that Marion, for
> example, did the same, as well as Galinsky.

Yes, we might mean differently, but we are not talking about our printing
methods though. The question is, are you sure when Gallinsky said maximum
insolubility, she meant the same way you meant? And Katherine, I want to say
that I am not arguing with you. We are looking at some papers and are
interested in intrepeting them. Basically that's what I see what we are

Also, is the first paper in "Photo News?" You wrote "Phot News." I would
like to make sure before I asked about it. I don't know if public library
can help me locate such an old article.

Dave S
Received on Thu Jun 24 13:32:45 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/02/04-09:40:14 AM Z CST