From: Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Date: 05/14/00-01:53:00 PM Z
At 11:06 AM 05/14/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>I actually thought we had moved on from here, but it seems not.
>
>
I probably should not respond to this. I certainly do not want to start
a flame war here but don't like having rocks thrown at me.
I have no misunderstanding of the process. I made it clear that the
surface of the gelatin is "molded" by the plate. My reference to
calendering should indicate that.
Rod may feel that enamelled and waxed plates are superior to chrome,
indeed his experience may support this, but I think he will find I am not
the only one who disagrees. This is the sort of thing that can be tested by
practice rather than by opinion.
Perhaps this is really off topic here and should not be
continued. However, even though the discussion here has to do with the
possibility of ferrotyping alt processes prints certainly the experience
and behavior of the process where it is used most should be of some value.
I think that the conclusion that the discussion must be boring to others
is based on the existence of our disagreement rather than anything else.
As far as mentioning Tintype, the term ferrotype to mean producing a
glazed surface is pretty much an American practice, its called glazing
elswhere. Why did you bother to attack this unless you just want to attack
anything I say?
---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles,Ca. dickburk@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:19 PM Z CST