Re: Why Winsor & Newton?

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/30/05-11:09:37 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Robert M wrote:
> Pre-Internet, we obtained information from books. Generally speaking. It was
> less likely most books published would be inaccurate because writing a book
> took time. These days, anyone can publish their book with effortless ease;
> in many cases, it is not "peer reviewed." These days, anyone can create a
> group or web site and nobody vets their data.

Actually, it depends. My experience with books is that no matter how long
they took to prepare, they can be just as full of wrong assumptions,
unclear directions and what I call "seems logical disease" as the worst
internet bumble -- and since there is still an *authority* to the print
medium (and the glossy photos) that gives them a presumption of
correctness that throws the reader off even more. Not to mention that
should the author himself (and the errors that most readily come to mind
are from "him"s) find an error, it can't be corrected until another
edition which may never happen, but goes on radiating pain and confusion
through nine lives and then it's "vintage" and even more "credible."

Websites are another matter, to me mostly unknown, since as a rule, for
numerous reasons, I don't go there. (At least a book has an editor who
might occasionally pick up a defect of organization, if not of fact.)
However, my experience in 11 years on this list is that when a mistake
gets made it is going to be CORRECTED, sometimes corrected to death, but
that's to err on the side of the angels. If I had a dollar for every
error I've found in, even the vaunted KOL, I could, oh, buy another book.
And that's a classic now, forever & ever "golden."

Meanwhile, there's a problem that folks may bring on themselves, the
expectation of a clear answer, formulas, protocols, that can be taken by
rote, problem solved, for all questions. Sure for some questions...but in
practice, every variable, from water to light source is a.... variable.

Maybe not to the same extent in platinum, and iron/silver media, tho
generalities probably don't hold across the board there, either... But,
and I doubt many gum printers would dispute this, in gum printing EVERY
variable is a factor. You can't just say this paper or that hardener or
the other pigment, etc. each one -- at least in my tests -- can change the
way everything else behaves. In other words it's always a combo, how this
pigment works with that gum on such & such paper for instance.

There is no substitute for the 21-step and variables test of your own full
drill. A 21-step in time, like they say, saves 99.

Oh, and about that gum printing in dye, good luck. It came up before on
the list, for about 15 seconds. For one thing, dye sinks into the paper &
doesn't release, unless you just tint really heavy goop, & maybe not even
then. However, if you're going to print on non-paper, well, some new
paints are actually dyes, or near dyes. Tho don't ask me which ones, I've
forgotten. Try a 21-step.

Received on Mon May 30 23:09:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 06/02/05-10:12:03 AM Z CST