[pure-silver] Re: stopbath kills fixer
- From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:07:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: stopbath kills fixer
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:20:27 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
> The problem for the non-specialist, in which catagory I incl= ude
> myself, is to know where to go. This is where someone like you can
> be v= ery helpful. Both in directing one to sources and in giving at
> least a supe= rficial critique of whether the particular articles or
> books are worthwhile= .=20
Richard, the annoying "=" is back. I think they appear where long
lines are broken.
I have a list of useful literatures in a few categories on my web
site. It took me some years to find good expository books and
articles and compile taht list. There are many small review papers and
original research papers to add to them but most of the important ones
are cited in those work. Like when I write scientific publication I
generally give references to the person(s) who did the original
research to give them credits and also to facilitate literature
search, though as the place is informal the list may not be
exhaustive. I sometimes even add the name of journal, volume, page
numbers. The stuff on my web site is of course complete with reference
info. With them competent librarians can locate the owner of those
journals and order a copy for you.
> As to the second issue. Perhaps it would have been better to ask
> directl= y if the poster was having a practical problem and if so
> what it was.
Why? I can sometimes see what kinds of issues are current in forums by
looking at the access log to my web site. Search keywords, referrer,
etc. are actually coherent and they evolve slowly over time. Indeed
people are consulting my web site and discussing the issue, and I
occasionally get updates from some of the participants. I'm very glad
people find useful information on my site and discuss further, but I
am also disappointed when I see people misquote me, or grossly bend
what I say to their advantage. Sometimes people claim to have read
relevant papers I listed and tell people of his opinion, not what is
described in the papers. Now I get a personal insult when I refuse to
offer information that is to be paraphrased to another forum. Give me
a break!
> I th= ink sometimes you don't give out enough information
> considering the lack of= specialized knowledge in groups like
> this. Of course it would be different= if you were taking part in a
> specialized group dedicated to, say, advanced= organic chemistry, or
> something similar. There, one could rightly expect a= ll members to
> be in possesion of a certain amount of essential knowledge. H= ere,
> and in similar groups, the main interest is for non-specialists to
> lea= rn more about a rather complex subject. Perhaps out of pure
> curiousity or f= or the practical purpose of making better
> photographs.
It's getting less clear about what you are trying to say. I'm posting
some of what I know when I think the information is needed, when I
have time and energy. I also post some stuff on my web site and my web
site gets more than a gigabite traffic each month. I don't think I
want to be criticized for insufficient contribution. First of all, I'm
not a paid consultant; I'm not obligated to do anything here.
For one thing, for practical photography, people need not discuss stop
baths over and over. One just needs a recommendation for a product or
formula that works best for the problem at hand and this is it. If I
were to publish a darkroom cookbook, it would have maybe at most three
formulae, not thirty. And maybe one or two fixers. I even talked to
Bill Troop about this and I told him that he is welcome to adapt my
formula or work with Formulary to commercialize my formula.
For the other thing, if one wishes to understand chemistry of
photography, s/he should study standard process closely and also
supplement background knowledge so that s/he appreciates why the
standard system is made so. Playing around with formulae is next step.
If s/he is missing enough background info, the person needs good
expository literature on the lacking topics to study them. There is no
easy substitute for this. (Otherwise many college professors lose
their jobs.) In particular, internet forums are not a good place to
seek such a tutorial. Except Richard Knoppow I don't see many
knowledgeable, experienced, and/or qualified people willing to spend
time for such a thing. DO you know why? One reason is because you can
find them elsewhere, and people with deep understanding of anything is
generally too busy with their field of expertise. I see a lot of
power posters but I think the quality of their contribution is low and
before I question their technical backgrounds I even worry if they
ever have life outside of the internet, or take picture in the
field/studio.
A lot of people think the Internet is panacea for all existing
information, but I strongly disagree with that view.
--
Ryuji Suzuki
"Keep a good head and always carry a light camera."
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
