U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: alt-photo anniversary in 2009

RE: alt-photo anniversary in 2009


If it will make you feel any better over your "illicit digital sex", put your 14.4 oz camera on a 20 lb tripod and set it up on the streets of New York.  I am sure you will draw a crowd! hehehehe

thanks for your remembrances!

Best Wishes,

Mark Nelson

On Nov 19, 2008, at 10:35:20 PM, "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com> wrote:
From:"Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
Subject:RE: alt-photo anniversary in 2009
Date:November 19, 2008 10:35:20 PM CST

RE: "Anniversary":

That's not why I'm writing, but I must mention that Greg Schmitz, whom I'd 
picked up in the hall at Pratt, or maybe it was the other way around, told 
me about the list, sent me to Panix, and generally led the way. I was so 
thrilled by the incredible list info and the personalit(ies) -- then out 
of Australia courtesy of Steve Avery -- that I downloaded the entire 
archive (from 1994 to 1997 [Mike Ware, Steve Avery, Carson Graves, Allan 
Janus, Luis Nadeau, Peter Marshall, Bob Schramm, Bernie Boudreau, Henk 
Thijs, and "photo Dave" (Dave Soemarko), among others]) and printed it out 
-- and still have the stack on the shelf at my back as I write.

No, I didn't remember all those names, just picked them up by checking a 
page or two... And now I measure the stack (regular typing-laser paper, 
printed one side): As near as I can measure, just shy of 4 inches (10 

Among my reactions to the list, most dramatic was that I'd been studying 
furiously on my own, testing, reading, experimenting, reading, 
researching, and testing, for several years, and -- given the givens and 
the time, had learned (I thought) quite a lot-- but I had the feeling 
that, between the archive and the ongoing discourse, one year on the list 
doubled that info.

Of course the cast of characters has changed, though some folks seem to 
weave in and out... the tenor of discourse is a lot like then -- mostly 
good natured, warm, and collegial, with the occasional, um, dust-up. But 
there's been a shift in content... now a lot of digital and inkjet. IMO 
inevitably. I myself am NOT about to give up my digital camera (weighs 
just 14.4 ounces so I can carry it routinely in my purse, for whatever 
grabshots come my way -- that being my "esthetic"-- at least at the 
moment), plus whenever I screw up the exposure, which is, um, always a 
possibility, OK, just pop it into Photoshop and hocus-pocus it. But... 
half of that stuff, ie., the digital, is over my head... It multiplies 
faster than I do. So I suffer ongoing, not exactly "genius envy," say, 
digital-savvy envy.

And there seems a strong ambivalence about it generally -- like illicit 
sex: We know that's not why the almighty made the list, but... it's on 
folks' minds. Which is to say, do we have to outlaw list digital? I don't 
(think I ever) want a digital print as my final product, well, not always, 
unless, well, maybe a hybrid -- tho that's not this e-mail -- but knowing 
the ways and means, possibilities and devices, for negatives, would surely 
make everything else easier/better. I mean getting a decent negative from 
gum in lith film was like patting your stomach and rubbing your head while 
standing on a balloon while walking and chewing gum.

OK, enough... I had a comment on something else, which, on 2nd thought 
calls for a separate message.