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

Katharine Thayer kthayer at pacifier.com
Fri Jul 16 18:12:21 GMT 2010 

Now, THAT, was funny! Thanks for the laugh.



On Jul 16, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Paul Viapiano wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>

More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list