I'm not a list minder, so perhaps it's not my place to say so, but just
the same I want to say that as a list member, I am offended by this
gratuitous indirect slur of a colleague. It's not necessary, it's not
attractive, it's not informative, it's not anything that's useful to the
group. Perhaps being the target of several personal remarks lately makes
me extra sensitive to this, but I just want to remind us that our forum
is supposed to be free of personal insults, innuendos, and imputation of
nefarious motives to people whose only offense has been to disagree on
issues. Thank you.
Bill William wrote:
> Richard, I respect your wisdom and command of photographic
> Facts and Trivia VERY highly...
> However, your constant reference to Ryuji as the
> the one to turn to in terms of doubt, makes me suspect my
> own trust in you!
> A rough check turned up quite a few examples of your
> partiality to Ryuji:
> "the sort of thing Ryuji Suzuki has warned about..."
> "Ryuji Suzuki has a small article on..."
> "I suspect Ryuji will have further comments and perhaps a
> better analysis of ..."
> I think Ryuji Suzuki has...
> As Ryuji points out...
> I think Ryuji is probably...
> Ryuji Suzuki's comments are...
> My Gosh Richard, I want to hear YOUR knowledge,
> not what you think someone else knows.
> You wrote,
> "A couple of things need pointing out.
> First paper emulsions differ from film emulsions."
> Yes and no.
> They are much more similar than they are different.
> Perhaps this is like man and the apes, but they are
> actually very very similar... they even used to be much
> more similar than they are today, some formulae being
> essentially the same with minor, (yet important resulting)
> Today they have evolved into <somewhat> dissimilar items,
> yet for the most part they are much more similar than they
> are different, IMHO.
> "Perhaps Ryuji knows of some, but at as far as I know the
> techniques are about the same as they have been for
> Richard, there are new technologies evolving that
> apparently you have forgotten.
> "Again, film and paper emulsions are different and
> are made differently. For one thing the amount of ripening
> is different"
> Well this term is still found in use but I believe this is
> changing. When you use the term "Ripening" what you really
> are interested in is grain size.
> New emulsion preparation methods frequently may not really
> include a traditional "ripening" phase....
> While this statement is based somewhat on semantics, I
> think it best not to confuse the issue... all we really
> are talking about here is crystal size.
> Also, it is important to point out that strictly speaking,
> ripening refers to Ostwald Ripening, the process after
> precipitation, of grain growth by the dissolution of
> smaller crystals (and presumably parts of larger ones as
> well), and their re-precipitation on larger crystals, over
> and over again, until the desired average grain size is
> The second ripening, involving sulphur type compounds, is
> usually referred to as "digestion" but unfortunately, the
> use of these terms has occasionally been inconsistent. For
> my own emulsion work and related writing, I use the terms
> "Physical Ripening" and "Chemical Digestion"
> "Since Ryuji has been studying and making emulsions I
> would pay attention to his opinion about this."
> Thanks for the plug, Richard!
> For the record, I began studying and making emulsions in
> the late eighties....
> and for what it's worth, I would pay attention to my own
> opinion about this... and the others who suggested
> something other than just giving up.
> "Some substances may increase sensitivity but will
> also increase fog a lot which is intolerable in prints."
> True... but I would change the "will" to "might", or
> "probably will".
> Also, I would like to point out that your value judgement
> of fog being "intolerable" in prints is rather dogmatic
> and based on rigid traditional photographic concepts and
> may not really apply to EVERY case... when it comes to
> I have seen some beautiful examples of "art" where "white"
> was non-existent.
> Photography (Art?) can be different things...
> Sometimes its the subject matter.
> Sometimes its the message.
> Sometimes its the technique.
> Sometimes its the material.
> While I do make my positive emulsions to be "fog free" in
> the traditionally dogmatic photographic sense, I accept
> the fact that there are other combinations when it comes
> to art.
> It's good to encourage people to think outside of their
> Sorry for this long exhale!
> I think sleep deprivation does affect emulsional
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Upgrade Your Life
Received on Thu Nov 18 18:57:26 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:33 AM Z CST