• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

A Christmas Cookie from Santa

Athiril;

You have some valid points. Your last statement though is most important. ALL books on actual emulsion making have been square wheels!

This is in the opinion of just about all current Emulsion Scientists.

Wall, Baker, Glafkides and Duffin, to name four, all fail to address modern emulsions (of their time) with real examples and they address their contemporaneous emulsions, where mentioned, with many errors or omissions. One writer admitted in a private comment to someone that most of the emulsions he put in his book had never been tested by him. Many of Glafkides examples are a series of excerpts from the BIOS and FIAT reports, and much of Duffin are repeats from Glafkides. And, as I pointed out in another thread, Glafkides gets the Brovira table wrong.

Wall's books are full of obfuscation if you read them from the POV of an emulsion maker. Baker is better. The original BIOS and FIAT reports are filled with obfuscation and error.

I am trying to say things in a simple manner, but as pointed out above, some want more - they want the reasoning behind things. So, maybe I'll hit the mark or maybe miss it. I can think of 3 or 4 APUG members who will probably pan it just because I wrote it. So from that POV it may not matter what I say anyhow.

But, I hear you and agree, especially about the square wheels!

PE
 
I think the reasoning is important because then you can give people the tools to innovate and create, as opposed to just copying.
 
Athiril said:
I think the reasoning is important because then you can give people the tools to innovate and create, as opposed to just copying.
Click to expand...

That is very true and is why I do have a short section in my workshops devoted to this. Sometimes it is too advanced though.

PE
 
To add my two cents to the discussion....

What is considered too advanced? In different threads in this forum, it has been mentioned that emulsion making information is in many cases, incomplete and / or incorrect by design.

If the "advanced" material adds to a tested, verified and correct foundation from which we can create and at some point, design our own emulsions, then I would definitely like to see this extra theory / information included, even if I am not immediately prepared to use it. I will, in time, get to the point where successful efforts will require answers to the questions that will inevitably arise. More advanced information may answer a lot of those questions, and it will be complete and correct, and add to the knowledge base.

Thanks,

Bob M.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's one small step for PE, one giant leap for APUG-kind.
 
About what? I'm on the moon taking one small step and standing in a vacuum and you are sorry? How.
 
Mean while the rest of us have discovered pointy sticks!
 
Ray Rogers said:
Could you describe in what way your book "rounds the square"?
Click to expand...

Ray;

I am covering every aspect of modern emulsion making and comparing it to the "facts" in those old books. I am doing my best to leave nothing out and nothing ambiguous, and I have made every emulsion in the book! Contrast this to all other texts.

PE
 
I think it might be important to point out the errors and misrepresentations present in past books on emulsion making. It sounds like this is information that you have discovered through private communications, unpublished sources, etc., no?

Your book can be the almighty cleanse of bad emulsion literature in the past.

Random side note; I hear that E.J. Wall and F.E. Ives had some bad blood between them. Ives writes about it in his autobiography. Wall seems to have been the perpetrator... at least according to Ives.
 
Wall and Eder did not get along well either from what I hear.

But yes, I am trying to clarify the record.

PE
 
I agree with Chris.
If you know of specific errors or what have you, why don't you just point them out.

Ray
 
I am not going through each book with specifics directed to each formula. For example, it is sufficient to say that Wall quite consistently omits addition times of Silver Nitrate to Salt + Gelatn. He omits reactant temperatures in most places, and he omits gelatin type (hard, medium and slow or low ripening). Thats enough said.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
Wall and Eder did not get along well either from what I hear.


PE
Click to expand...
From Wall: "Eder has given a long dissertation on various additions that have been made at various times to emulsions, but nine-tenths of these are merely of historical interest and either utterly useless or even prejudicial in practice."

Doesn't sound like best-buddies to me.
 
Haha, that's hilarious. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Wall was the jerk... this could make a great thesis topic at some point.
 
Lol, drama Llamas. Nothing's changed with humanity.
 
Photographs will examples of common mistakes would let the user realized that they are not alone and headed toward the right path.

Steve
 
I had not intended to do that. Believe it or not, it would take a lot of time and space in the book! There are too many ways to do things wrong!

PE
 
I don't think any of this is unusual.
Teachers are often threatened by the progress of good students,
and many students often assume an aire of 'superiority'.

Has anyone missed this even here in our own little forum?

Eder did a lot of early very detailed research ... and reported it.
The fact that Wall did not find a need for all those tidbits
says more about the progress of the field than anything else.

I have read Eder's work and I think I understand what Wall means.
On the other hand, Eder's work (and the BJOP for that matter) was their "internet".
For someone wanting a "cookie cutter", Eder has a lot of useless grains,
but for the researcher set on designing a different kind of cookie,
Eders work was like an encylopedia or todays internet...

While cookie cutting immitators may complain,
who is to say what will turn out to be of value to the creator thinking out of the box?

Wall has a point, but Eder was greater scientist and teacher.
 
Photo Engineer said:
I am not going through each book with specifics directed to each formula... Thats enough said.

PE
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, but I suggest that there is a good reason for that.
In the context of history, I don't think those men were so (fill in the correct word).

It is only natural for you to improve upon 50-80 year old texts.
However, I doubt you can live up to your claim and the appearent expectation of many on this fourm, of adaquately covering "modern" emulsion manufacture without stepping on Kodaks tail.

Anything Kodak OK's will not likely be new nor critical to their POV.

Or course, new to whom is the question.

Least you think I am being negative--- not at all.
I cannot think of anyone back here on Earth
more egar to see what you have to say
about your walk on the moon.

Best Wishes

Ray
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Photo Engineer said:
I had not intended to do that. Believe it or not, it would take a lot of time and space in the book! There are too many ways to do things wrong!

PE
Click to expand...

One could just get some of the other emulsion making books? Assuming they have photos..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register