Re: SPE and alt update
- To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
- Subject: Re: SPE and alt update
- From: Keith Gerling <keith.gerling@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:02:29 -0600
- Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
- Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;s=beta;h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;bh=huhpH4zeZAEvHu4vUY9qOxyNy97gWtvW7kgEZlLVwoM=;b=EZ4nrZsdrC9wvfY/GteuCdV66o8hr3q/CXGFA74skqc+jBULFPU0jmEcrPB42zPeJ7VzIMyN5LSEBvzjkFOU+2Vgj51Vg8Hxv9j0hAcX3qkTnQNa4J+TjLoGmAorc89K+wvnR3BSQij0DK6VRWSjAHBMC40q1Z3r+O7YWMCmhTY=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;b=I+cGFScCJdPil3eqXH2iOgW11XzttMkMLHqvlm/4Np2PCHO+/jsGjMlFPIlc+rCAcFF9Z1tz4lYa2cNkHWqvUPCCflF8pGH2+PYJLBYAqZUxeF7R51OxyLaxlmn6QXf8KEv2jzQEewSpKZ3BU5MNOMHa379jzt51PCM0z5PYehg=
- In-reply-to: <005001c8953a$f5055bb0$8801a8c0@athlon64>
- List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
- References: <98766a900804022022h4ea16312g9adcbdfd855044ea@mail.gmail.com><005001c8953a$f5055bb0$8801a8c0@athlon64>
- Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
On 4/2/08, Don Bryant <dsbryant@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Keith,
>
> The BFK is not as bad as I thought. Thanks! Now where could I store it? Not
> under the bed, my wife would notice that one right off.
>
>
> Don
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Gerling [mailto:keith.gerling@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:22 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: SPE and alt update
>
> I wish I could see her work. But I have to say that registration of
> large negatives is much easier that you might think. In fact, the
> larger the work, the less the eye notices small imperfections (which
> is one reason I print big)
>
> Here is a source for rolls of commonly used papers at pretty good prices:
>
> http://apps.webcreate.com/ecom/catalog/product_listing.cfm?ClientID=15&Categ
> oryFullID=229
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Clay Harmon <wcharmon@wt.net> wrote:
> > I dunno. I have seen some papers available in that size, but maybe she is
> > just buying rolls and cutting it herself. It is daunting to think about
> > trying to register a negative on a print that large. And I can tell you
> that
> > her layers are definitely registered. Just flat out gorgeous work.
> >
> > Clay
> >
> >
> > On Apr 2, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Don Bryant wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Clay,
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Another tidbit I picked up from talking shop with her was that she is
> > > making her negatives for her 'small' prints (22x30!!!) using
> conventional
> > > film enlarged negatives. Only for her elephant sized prints (I think she
> > > said these were 44x30) does she use digital negatives.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wow! Where does one find paper large enough to print gum @ 44x30 inches?
> > >
> > > Don Bryant
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>