Re: The Cockroach Report Re: Autoclaving gum and gelatin

From: [email protected]
Date: 02/10/05-08:33:13 AM Z
Message-id: <20050210143313.UBCG15146.out004.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net>

Time for everybody to switch to decaf.

George
>
> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
> Date: 2005/02/10 Thu AM 12:23:20 GMT
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: The Cockroach Report Re: Autoclaving gum and gelatin
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> > ... I'm utterly and decidedly fed up with people who know
> > nothing at all about gum printing telling gum printers how gum printing
> > works, based on theory that may or may not be applicable to the case in
> > question.
>
> What's the matter Katharine, you have something against "expertise"?
>
> > A while back Sandy was going on about his disgust at people who chime in
> > on a thread whether they know anything about it or not; I must say I am
> > in complete agreement with him on this.
>
> I think it's the *tone* of the chiming in -- not just the "expertise" from
> left field or from a course with Meyer Schapiro in 1978. The only cure
> may be to land on them with hobnail boots -- tho that could discourage
> useful questions.
>
> > ... I just heat the
> > gelatin enough to dissolve completely and to stay melted while brushing
> > on, which doesn't have to be over 120F, and it works fine. If it does
> > get too hot, it results in a characteristic speckling pattern, as Judy
> > said, and as I and others have also observed.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > ... I'm not arguing that the gelatin
> > loses its ability to gel, or that it otherwise "breaks down," only that
> > something happens to its ability to provide an adequate size for gum. I
> > won't say what that is, because I don't know, but it doesn't really
> > matter what causes it physically or chemically, the fact is that this is
> > what happens, at least in my shop. But what the heck, the guy should
> > just autoclave his gelatin and try using it for a sizing for gum, and
> > see what happens; the more information the better.
>
> Points well taken -- except, it occurs to me that the question the fellow
> asked was about autoclaving to sterilize for preserving. THAT was never
> answered, being entirely lost when a real target (moi) appeared. (I read
> something recently about the pioneers being the ones with the most arrows
> in their back -- dunno if that goes for cockroaches though.)
>
> > As I said, it's been my observation that when the gelatin is overheated,
> > the sizing fails and results in speckling. That observation isn't
> > altered by all the arguing and bloviating about gelatin and its
> > different states and the ability to make calves foot jelly by boiling
> > calves feet. All those things are no doubt true, but still, if you get
> > the gelatin too hot, the resulting size will give you speckling in your
> > gum print....
>
> So far, however, you seem to have escaped this bullet: Nobody is telling
> you to do more tests and find out the REAL cause, you ninny.
>
> > ....to hoot the observations out of existence simply
> > because they are inconsistent with some theory of how gelatin behaves,
> > is itself inconsistent with being a scientist.
>
> But even theories of "how gelatin behaves" are abused. Rather, theories of
> gelatin behavior, given a leap and a twist, are pasted into the vicinity
> of my examples. Suddenly even boiling or scalding with water is
> irrelevant. What's the theory for that?
>
> > As to the ruckus below about Judy's inconsistency, it makes no sense to
> > me. The way I read it, Judy was saying that this speckling had never
> > occurred before the incidents of overheating; in other words, that the
> > only cause for this speckling she could see was the overheating of the
> > gelatin. This seems a reasonable inference to me, since she saw it more
> > than once.
>
> Exactly. My thanking Ryuji was Cockroach Facetious. I was in fact noting
> his lack of reading comprehension and writing clarity, not to mention his
> re-invention of my statements. (Cockroaches are pretty consistent anyway.)
> Now he writes:
>
> >> ... I requested you to explain your statement that heating gelatin
> >> above 140F "breaking down" the gelatin never happened before. After a
> >> couple of months, all of sudden, gelatin heated above 140F now "breaks
> >> down" and you argue you gained this knowledge through 14 years of
> >> teaching experience. How convenient.
>
> Even ignoring the tone of derision -- what does it mean? What does he
> THINK it means? Does he REALLY think that's what I said? Does it merit a
> reply? (Answers: who knows?, who knows?, no, and no.)
>
> > It seems to me also that the derision is selective as to whom it's
> > directed at; other gum printers make sweeping statements from much less
> > evidence all the time, without being treated to this kind of insulting
> > condescension and derision.
>
> But the "others" may not be female. Or if female, not Uppity Female. (Or,
> dare I say, not so often right?) As I have mentioned a time or two,
> that's a whole other country. There's been a fair lot about it in the
> press lately, BTW. Did I cite an example in the Times after Lawrence
> Summers' booboo about women in science -- or was that just to someone
> offlist? (They should read this list -- they could stop using graduate
> students for guinea pigs.)
>
> I read a lovely one today, by Margaret Carlson, from the LA Times &
> Washington Post, Jan. 28 '05, titled "Boxer's Spine gets Her Cut Off at
> the Knees." If folks ask, I'll copy it and send to them OFFLIST, within
> the next few days. I found it very apt -- though red staters might not.
>
> > Now, if someone could help me figure out where the light leak in my new
> > pinhole camera is coming from, which has been making me tear my hair out
> > for two days, I'd be in business.
>
> Could it possibly be reflection from glossy paper as negative? I knew
> someone who had that.
>
> Whether or not, thanks again.
>
> Judy
>
Received on Thu Feb 10 08:33:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/01/05-02:06:54 PM Z CST