From: Christina Z. Anderson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 07/28/03-08:09:03 PM Z
<Judy said> Following the books as well as I can, I find the myths
originated with ---
> sorry guys -- Paul Anderson. I have to get ahold of his 1913 series in
> American Photography on Gum Printing, but if it's the same as his series
> in The Camera in 1935, several myths began there -- picked up by, sorry
> Chris, Crawford then Scopick, and from there to the world.... but more on
> this later...
I don't know how much clearer I can be on this subject but here goes
one more try:
DRUM ROLL: Paul Anderson did not invent pigment stain.
The pigment stain test was in the literature long before: Demachy and
Maskell as I have said months ago on this list, in *1898*; Warren's *1898*
book, Richards' *1905* book, the *1905* Practical Photographer Series 18, is
that enough to vindicate Paul Anderson? Certainly on other points he may be
wrong--don't have time at the moment, nor interest, to address those.
<Judy said>So, could we please not define "the best" gum as the closest
imitation of platinum? Yuck.
Here you and I are in ABSOLUTE agreement. To approximate a platinum print
in gum is unnecessary; why not print platinum? In Keith Gerling's post,
Demachy's link to the girl with a scarf over her head, now THAT'S a gum
print. It also proves my former point that Demachy did not only do one
coats. And, ooohhhh, that flesh color...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 08/07/03-03:34:51 PM Z CST