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

Fri Jul 16 17:24:26 GMT 2010

I never said anything about vapid babbling...but I do think the last post 
was too cyan.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christina Anderson" <zphoto at montana.net>
To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list" 
<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 9:48 AM
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about 
HPlargeformatnegatives

> Great minds think alike, Mark and Bob :)
>
> So was I. However, I dared not to say it on list because I was afraid I'd 
> get trounced by Paul (V.) or Bob (Barnes) for vapidly babbling.
>
> Glad Bob Kiss said it and I didn't. And, gee, he didn't even get in 
> trouble! Hmmmm...it must be that it was talk of alt workshops that made it 
> more on topic.
>
> Chris
>
> Christina Z. Anderson
> christinaZanderson.com
>
> On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Mark Nelson wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo 