Re: black fingernails, et al, was Re: Paper - baby oil Digi Negs

[Paul Viapiano <viapiano@pacbell.net>]

Judy,

You'd make a great spokesperson for Red Bull!

Respectfully,

Paul


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: black fingernails, et al, was Re: Paper - baby oil Digi Negs


> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, Paul Viapiano wrote:
>
> > Et tu, Judy?
> >
> > Godammit...we'll make our own!
> >
> > Paul
> Make our own *what*?  By the time I came into photography, film was 
> approaching its end-stage -- or that was my surmise, and why, when I felt 
> compelled by unseen forces to put text about photography into print, I 
> called it "post-factory."  What I myself wanted was to make *pictures* -- 
> I didn't care about film per se... in fact, truth to tell, I was never 
> much good with it, except plain Tri-X. The rest, especially large format, 
> was too unforgiving, too exacting, too fiddly, too much math.... 
> Everything had to be set in advance, programmed, no second guessing, no 
> experiment, just another day in the darkroom, more $$$ for film, & more 
> rules to learn.
>
> So I have an antique 4x5 and a storied lens (something Dagor) in a drawer 
> in the studio in a chest I can't get to without moving 88 pounds of stuff 
> ... but it never caught my heart... Not that I didn't suffer for years 
> with lith film for negs until digital negs got doable... But the "alt" 
> processes invite amendment, you can add another coat, or wipe out a coat 
> or lay something on top of something... And if you screw up you can keep 
> going or call out the marines, or find some wizard on the list -- it's not 
> total death like a failed outing with film.
>
> So when you say "make our own," if you mean our own emulsions, paper, 
> processes, soup, technique, look, protocol, combos, & so forth... We may 
> do some of that every day.  But I haven't used film (if that's what you're 
> talking about) in years.... except large negs for alt. But you don't mean 
> make our own *film*, do you ?!!
>
> However, I'll say this for film...  It's tough & it keeps. Yesterday, 
> looking for something else, I came across 3 rolls of color film I'd shot 
> in Times Square in the '80s, good as new. At the time, the prints were so 
> disappointing I never shot color again, finishing the project the way I'd 
> begun, in b&w, adding color by fair means or foul in the prints. But 
> yesterday, I thought, now that I've got some computer savvy, and a digital 
> printer so huge I could live in it, I can probably fix these blah old 
> photos. So for the first time (blush) I looked, not at the stupid PRINTS 
> Kodak made in '87,,,, but at the NEGATIVES.
>
> And -- they're fascinating... The look of the reverse color is a trip in 
> itself, & printing them via separations should be another trip. The 
> problem, it dawned on me, was the prints that came with them:  Not just 
> the insipid commercial color... but what those jerks at Kodak did (& 
> probably still do) ... they cropped my exquisitely composed images in the 
> print... No wonder they look blah.
>
> Is that something everyone else knows? If you have a roll of film printed 
> commercially they'll "fix" it by auto-cropping (unless you can find a 
> custom lab and threaten mayhem)?
>
> Paul, if I misunderstood your dismay... my abject apologies. But I'm 
> mostly lamenting the color photos I never made in Times Square because 
> Kodak ruined them first. (Tho on the 3rd hand, I've been making progress 
> with fake real color, which is usually more fun....)
>
> best,
>
> Judy