[alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge formatnegatives
Terry King
terryaking at aol.com
Fri Jul 16 18:51:06 GMT 2010
Bob
Well when I wrote it i did so as 'coming on' or 'coming to' are, to most people, quite innocuous with nothing other than their obvious meaning.
But I realise that in this world of alternative ways of doing things, one needs to be very careful.
I had one student who insisted on referring to her casein prints as 'my milk prints'. It took me some time to realise why.
I naively replied to another student that it was possible that she could also use other bodily fluids to make alt prints little realising that she would go to the models on her homo-erotic project for supplies.
Just as a rider, I am told that over 50% of connections to the net are concerned with porn.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: BOB KISS <bobkiss at caribsurf.com>
To: 'The alternative photographic processes mailing list' <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:18
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge formatnegatives
DEAR TERRY,
Hey! You wrote it, not me! But, then again, I did interpret it in
the worst (or best, depending) way! ;-))
CHEERS!
BPB
-----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 11:15 AM
To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge
formatnegatives
Dear Bob
Oh you are a naughty boy !
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: BOB KISS <bobkiss at caribsurf.com>
To: 'The alternative photographic processes mailing list'
<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:48
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge
formatnegatives
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
__________ 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
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list
mailing list