Re: Why Winsor & Newton?

From: Robert M ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/31/05-05:38:23 PM Z
Message-id: <BAY3-DAV1481A0BBD47A6EE48A6CDEE6050@phx.gbl>

> It seems to me I gave a long, detailed, fact and history-filled
> explanation of why Winsor Newton has been preferred, or was. Did you read
> it?

Yes Judy, I read what you said. Stop being so defensive . . . I simply asked
a question. Is this not the reason for the list? I have read other
explanations, so forgive me, but it is your opinions vs. someone else's
opinions. We do not need to argue. Let's stop playing the mine is bigger
game because it does not serve either of us specifically or the list in
general.

You mentioned some problem on the list because the question was (apparently)
asked before. I think you mentioned the "list minder" as I recall; the tone
suggested the question was off limits or perhaps arguments broke out. I will
accept I might have taken your tone wrong and I will accept I did not read
the archives. Again, all I did was ask a simple question.

I also said we should be able to discuss the question because some might
want to know why W/N is preferred. So I asked why the topic (apparently) was
off limits. I will accept I might have missed some minor point.

> It is my opinion, though you may disagree, that every discussion
> should be "hearted." Either way, you claim to have "managed to avoid" --
> perhaps what you avoided was the information you request again.

I am not sure what you mean. Educate me offline if you wish. By "hearted"
do you mean always nice and never disagreeable? I agree, let us be nice. As
for not being disagreeable, I disagree. Experts arrive on every list and
some "amateurs" actually know more than the self-proclaimed experts know.
Just because someone says something on the list, has an "alt "web site or
publishes a magazine, this does not make the presented information true. I
am always up for a discussion when I post my thoughts and opinions; every
post is liable to be discussed and expanded by other readers. This is how it
should be. When I am incorrect, I'll say so. Again, part of the reason for
this list is so we can discuss Alt and Alt materials. So I ask questions.

> > So my next question is this: if "you" are concerned about vehicles and
> > carriers that may or may not affect the process or the longevity of the
> > print, why not forget commercially manufactured colors and compound your
> > own? There are a few good sources for pure pigments and the "simple"
> > requirements of the gum process/Tri-Color Carbo make compounding quite
easy.
>
> Because in my considerable experience in gum printing, a well formulated,
> documented & labelled paint is far better to work with and infinitely
> quicker. If you've ever seen a movie of rollers preparing a tube pigment,
> you will understand why it gives a smoothness not reached by hand mulling,
> unless that is your preferred long-term passtime & probably not even then.

I might not have the day to day "experience" with gum you have, but I do
have extensive experience with pigments and dyes. My first gum prints were
made when I was in high school, in 1973, and periodically in our lab at Bill
Shipler Photo. I also have Dye Transfer, Color Carbo, and Color Vectograph
experience and knowledge. I have experience with processes most here never
knew existed. Including you, Judy. When I put "you" in quotes, I did not
mean you personally. I meant the readers. Sorry if I was not clear, my
fault.

You assume it is too hard to make your own paints and it takes too much
time. Not true. OK, perhaps for you and others it is simply too much bother
and if you like the results you obtain using squeeze tubes, I see no reason
to bother with pigment/paint/dye formulations or worries about photo
chemistry. For people like me, I do indeed think making paints is worthwhile
and not a bother. I also think if you were to experiment, you might discover
that some very cheap paints will work as well or better than W/N.

You mentioned "a well formulated, documented & labeled paint . . ." I think
the only way to be sure is by compounding your own paint. Despite whatever
W/N tells the world, chances are, they add other materials to their
formulations. I doubt that most readers will not bother making paints
because there are workable alternatives. That does not change the fact that
when you make your own pigments, you know exactly what is in the compound.
This also speaks to your point: about "a well formulated, documented &
labelled paint."

By the way, powered pigment colors eliminate much of the work involved in
making paints. Some powdered pigments are as finely ground as the pigments
used by commercial manufacturers. Or available special order.

As for seeing a movie of the process, I do not need to. I know people in the
business and I understand how paint is manufactured. I have written about
the manufacturing process for a well known manufacturer of artist's colors.
I have toured more than one plant in my day. Paints and pigments are
something I understand. You are not the only "expert" on this list, Judy.

> Meanwhile, I didn't say good paints are not available, in fact quite the
> contrary. I said some paints are bad. That hardly means I need to make my
> own paint, rather that I have to know what I'm buying,the parameters and
> the variables.

Not the point I was trying to make. Commercial paints do work and apparently
they work quite well. No arguments from me. So you can forget the scales,
dangerous chemicals, and binders/vehicles. My point was, if you make your
own paints, you know exactly what is in the mix.

> > You put "realistic" in quotes. Are you interested in true color or some
> > approximate fidelity to sooth your vision? I am just asking. True color
is
> > "easy" because you can easily obtain the proper dyes used to make dye
> > transfer prints. They should be easy to change to suite the needs of
most
> > workers on this list.
>
> I wouldn't sooth my vision or soothe it either with paint. In fact my
> vision doesn't need soothing, quite the contrary. If I wanted fully
> "realistic" color or "realistic" anything else, however, I would make
> c-prints.

So, in other words, you do have a vision. You do not want realistic colors.
Many "artists" talk of their vision and some like muted and unrealistic
colors. My vision, for lack of a better word is absolute color accuracy or
as close as I can get. This is why dye transfers appeal to me. But that is
just me.

Bob
..
Received on Tue May 31 19:45:46 2005

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