Re: Foxlee Gum Process

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/24/04-07:17:39 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Dave Soemarko wrote:

> 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.

It seems to me that you are arguing against your own position here, as
this provides further support of my suggestion that you're talking
about dark reaction; it seems inevitable that the reaction would occur
in the unexposed areas where, as you say, there is more unreacted
dichromate which is also more available for reaction than what little
unreacted dichromate is trapped in the insoluble gelatin. So the
reaction would be more in the unexposed areas, just as Galinsky

> > 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.

Of course, but one has a basis for one's assumptions; you have your
basis for the assumptions you have made; I was just disclosing the basis
for the assumptions I made.

The question is, are you sure when Gallinsky said maximum
> insolubility, she meant the same way you meant?

No, I'm not. And in fact on re-reading this section very carefully, I'm
not even sure your interpretation of what she did is not more correct
than mine. But that doesn't change the fact that if your interpretation
is right about what's going on, then the image in Foxlee's or Marion's
experiment could not have been retained because the unexposed areas
would become insoluble. So I'm not even sure I understand what it is
you're arguing. Whether or not Galinsky did her experiment in such a way
as to accurately replicate Marion's but without the pressure, and I'm
willing to concede that there might be some question about that, there
still isn't an adequate explanation provided for Marion's (and Foxlee's)
observations. As I've said, I don't think your explanation works because
it predicts that the entire print would become a wall of insoluble
colloid, rather than the image being retained.

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
> doing.

Of course, did anyone say otherwise? I certainly didn't. This is one
thing that makes me crazy about this list, that whenever there's a
difference of opinion people take it personally or think it means people
are fighting. No, I don't take a difference of opinion on issues
personally, never did and never will. When I speak of an "argument" I'm
using the term in the sense of a position that's laid out, or a point
that's been brought forward, not a fight, for crying out loud.
> Also, is the first paper in "Photo News?" You wrote "Phot News."

That's exactly as the reference is given in Galinsky, so that's the best
I can do.

Received on Thu Jun 24 14:14:35 2004

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