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

ender100 at aol.com ender100 at aol.com
Fri Jul 16 18:26:42 GMT 2010


Paul, maybe it was Chris's thong that was too cyan.... hehehehehehe

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






-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Viapiano <viapiano at pacbell.net>
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Fri, Jul 16, 2010 12:24 pm
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlargeformatnegatives


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