Re: Adjacency Effects Again

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Gregory W Blank wrote:

> For what its worth, the only negative of my own to clearly
> and undeniablely exhibit "edge effects" aka " A Mackie line" is a PMK
> developed negative. I believe it was shot on Fortepan 400 , and Jobo
> processed.

Well, sorry if this seems grandiose, but another thing I proved in about
10 minutes is that at least half the "literature" about so-called
adjacency effects is wrong... That is, in most sources until very
recently, if not still, the so-called "Mackie Line" in sabatier effect was
called an adjacency effect, due to bromide drag & depletion &
yatyatyatya...

The way to prove that's wrong -- or one of the ways -- is to do adjacent
exposures of the same amount on developer-wet paper and develop, You get
"mackie lines" between EQUAL grays, so they're hardly by-products
transgressing. The actual explanation was given in the 1930s by two
English (I think) researchers and recorded in the literature, thereafter
honored in the ignoring. It is, they proved, due to halation. I'm in a
hurry now but anyone who has Post-Factory #2 will find it in there, along
with 6 or seven scans of my own -- triple mackie lines, black white and
grey mackie lines, black mackie lines on white and on grey, as well as a
print with dandy grey mackie lines from a developer with ADDED
hydroquinone... although one "authority" had explained that it's the
depletion of hydroquinone that enhances adjacency effects.

Of course I know little if anything about the effects under discussion
here, except that YOU CAN NOT TRUST THEM. They are written by experts
theorizing in front of their typewriters, as is so much else. Where are
the test strips? I never saw any in James (except as I recall
microphotographs which coould be yesterday's rice pudding) but maybe that
was an early edition.

Trust only what you see, as Gregory describes above, and take all theory
as wrong until proved right (except this one).

Judy
Received on Fri Apr 9 14:06:40 2004