[alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge formatnegatives

Fri Jul 16 16:39:43 GMT 2010

Hehehe I was thinking the same thing Bob!   I died laughing when I read that!

Mark Nelson
www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
PDNPRint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com

sent from my iPhonetypeDeviceThingy

On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:48 AM, "BOB KISS" <bobkiss at caribsurf.com> wrote:

> O.K. Terry,
>    I have a small problem with your last sentence.  "When it comes to
> humor, I have the killer instinct...I go straight for the jocular!"  (Max
> Headroom)
>    Sooooooooooooooooo, I am trying REALLY hard to resist my desire to
> make a joke of it and assume you meant to say, "I wish that everyone could
> come 'to one' of my workshops"...right?  ;-))
>        CHEERS!
>            BOB
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
> Terry King
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge
> formatnegatives
> 
> One of the difficulties is that many gum prints are so unsubtle in the use
> of the colour and process that the gum printing itself has got a bad name.
> 
> 
> I wish that everyone could come on my workshops.
> 
> 
> terry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net>
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:24
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge
> formatnegatives
> 
> 
> I think I'm getting a headache here, Keith.  I suspect we're talking about
> two different things.  Though I've never seen an "image" taken with a
> lenscap on (unless it had a pinhole in it!), I have actually seen one or two
> gum prints made in heavy fog-- and I will have to say that the image itself,
> on each, was interesting.  The process enhanced that, but if the image
> itself hadn't been compelling to begin with (no matter how faint it was), no
> process would have made it so (my opinion). 
> 
> My issue, really, is that I see a lot of really bad work (again, that's my
> subjective opinion) that someone thinks will be elevated if (1) he/she
> prints it so big that people will be drawn to it, no matter what.  How can
> they not be, taking up multiple feet of wall space? or (2) if printed in
> some "alt" process, no matter how badly-- or, you know, he/she uses a
> Photoshop application that might duplicate that process (seriously, I've
> seen that too many times), and that will somehow elevate their banal image
> into something special. 
> 
> I think you're delving into something much more nuanced than what my point
> was-- but I get what you're saying.  (I think. ) 
> 
> Diana 
> 
> On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Keith Gerling wrote: 
> 
>> Diana, 
>> 
>> I had in mind works that have little or no image whatsoever, take for 
>> instance gum bichromates work taken in heavy fog or perhaps an > "image"
> taken 
>> with the lenscap on!  So, yes, it is the process I find interesting > and
> it 
>> did much (everything) for the "image". 
>> 
>> Keith 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Diana Bloomfield < 
>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Hi Keith, 
>>> 
>>> If I'm reading you correctly, you actually just supported what I >> was
> saying 
>>> in my last sentence here.  The actual process in those works of art >> is
> what 
>>> you found interesting, or captivating-- (You're obviously in that >>
> small 
>>> percentage of people who are interested in the process of art.)-- >> But,
> by 
>>> your own admission, the processes didn't do much for the image, or >> for
> the 
>>> final piece of art, which "might be lacking." 
>>> 
>>> Whether the work "has substance" or not is a totally different >> topic,
> I 
>>> think (?). 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Keith Gerling wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Heresy perhaps, but I would beg to differ with that last >> statement.
> There 
>>>> are examples of paintings, photographs and sculpture and film that >>>
> *I* 
>>>> find 
>>>> especially captivating although the image may be minimal, abstract >>>
> or 
>>>> particularly droll.  Perhaps it is texture, or the use of color, >>> or
> the 
>>>> manner in which washes or impasto is used to build up the work,  >>> but
> the 
>>>> work still has substance even though the fundamental image might be 
>>>> lacking. 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Diana Bloomfield < 
>>>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Bob, 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with most of what you've said here, but when I say the >>>>
> final 
>>>>> image 
>>>>> is really what really matters-- I mean that this is what matters >>>>
> to the 
>>>>> general public/ people who may look at those images.  I do think >>>>
> the 
>>>>> process 
>>>>> matters, but it truly only matters (mostly) to me (ie, to the >>>>
> person 
>>>>> making 
>>>>> the art).  Of course-- for any of us-- there might be some 
>>>>> curators/gallery 
>>>>> owners/collectors who will know what they're looking at and be very 
>>>>> interested in the process involved-- especially true for gallery >>>>
> owners 
>>>>> who 
>>>>> will want to pass that on to their collectors/viewers-- but for >>>>
> the vast 
>>>>> majority of people who look at photography, it really is the >>>> final
> image 
>>>>> that matters to them.  They rarely want to hear about the fine >>>>
> details. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> And I don't care how the image is printed, even if your print >>>> just
> rolled 
>>>>> off a big old Epson printer-- if the image itself isn't >>>>
> captivating, no 
>>>>> amount of good (or bad) printing--  no matter what process used-- >>>>
> will 
>>>>> make 
>>>>> it so. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diana 
>>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5284 (20100716) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo