[alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! . . . and a topic of a different nature

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi Mark,

I'm new to the list.  :)

Yeah, duh--  I probably got totally confused because you actually  
addressed your post to me.

And you have too much faith in my print-making abilities.  I probably  
could have made, say, 1 layer of 1 gum print in the time it took to  
post, but multiple prints?  Of course, I am a super-fast typist.   
Although . . .  if I had that chemistry thing down to an exact science  
(so to speak), I probably could have done more.  Hmm . . .

Sorry, Bob, for the hijack of your subject line.  More importantly, I  
have no solutions to your dilemma; put in smaller containers and store  
them in a cool dark space?  I'm sure you've thought of that.

~Diana

On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:06 PM, ender100 at aol.com wrote:

> Hi Diana,
>
>
> My apologies, if you took my post personally—it isn't about you.  I  
> think your post and the thread it belonged to just popped some  
> issues related to the list up above the level of animal awareness in  
> my brain.... or perhaps even vegetable awareness, so I hit respond  
> rather than taking the time to start a new thread and look up the  
> list address.  So my sin is probably laziness.  I hope you didn't  
> feel that I "jumped on you" and will forgive my sin.
>
>
> But then, we did all benefit by learning more about you personally  
> from your reply, so it wasn't a total loss.  Also, I appreciate that  
> you are a "direct person."  Directness is a good thing.
>
>
> So again my apologies for the misunderstanding that led to you  
> having to spend time writing such a complete and intelligent  
> response.  But apparently you felt we did find some common ground of  
> agreement so that is good.
>
>
> Probably my sense of humor is an acquired taste—as my children could  
> certainly attest to—but then they were a captive audience and I had  
> years to brainwash them.  Now, my daughter Kaddiddlehopper, seems to  
> be bent on passing it on to the next generation.  Hopefully this  
> will not lead to worldwide conflict.  Maybe that is why I usually  
> identify weird comments that strike me as humorous by the tag line  
> "hehehehe", which in this case I failed to do—and look at the  
> consequences of that failure—you could have probably made 3-4 gum  
> prints in the time you took to reply.  But I am glad for your  
> gracious reply.
>
>
> Don't they say that music is just pure mathematics?  But then, I too  
> digress.
>
>
> Maybe we should all start posts with "I'm new to the list"?
>
>
> Back to my closet.
>
>
> Best Wishes,
>
>
> Mark Nelson
> www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
> PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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: Wed, Jul 28, 2010 2:11 pm
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Just to clarify-- my comment wasn't really about the "creativity of  
> [my] marital relationship" (or, perhaps that comment was an attempt  
> at being amusing?-- I honestly can never tell); it was, rather, a  
> comment that once one gets to a certain level, those who are at that  
> level consider mathematics to also be highly creative (as creative,  
> in its own way, as-- say-- the visual arts).  I suspect that's true  
> for those in the sciences as well.  I remember when our daughter was  
> in high school, and one of only 3 females in her advanced physics  
> class-- she was good, but I remember her saying that she would never  
> go into that field, because-- although she was good at it-- she  
> didn't nearly have the vision and imagination that a few of her  
> classmates (who did go on to be physics majors in college and on  
> into graduate school) had, and she felt that would always hold her  
> back-- in that particular field.  That's just a little aside.  The  
> follow-up post I made to my original post was really just an  
> explanation that, since I might have implied math and science aren't  
> creative, too, I do know they are and can be-- and didn't want  
> anybody jumping on me about that comment.  Of course, it never  
> dawned on me I'd have to explain that little explanation as well--  
> but, what  do you know, here I am having to do just that.
>
> On to the topic at hand-- I am in complete agreement with what you  
> write here.  I have no idea why you felt the need to write that to  
> me, specifically in response to what I just wrote.  Perhaps this is  
> just the nature of emails/posts, which are so different from  
> dialogue when people are in an actual room, talking to each other.
>
> While I absolutely do appreciate, like to understand, and value the  
> chemistry involved in alt processes-- I will, once again, say that  
> had anyone ever talked about molarity, or attempted to teach a  
> beginning alt process class in that way to me (yikes-- all those  
> equations?!)-- again, I would have most certainly bolted for the  
> nearest exit, and never ventured further.  I would have (wrongly)  
> assumed that alt processes required more math and chemistry than I  
> was willing to contemplate.  The key word here, Mark, is  
> "beginning."  I also suspect that Loris's students are quite  
> different from the ones I find myself teaching.
>
> I agree that there is a "need for tolerance" on topics, and I was  
> stunned by the quality of the discourse on this particular topic.  I  
> often wonder if people would have a real dialogue with others in the  
> same way, were they speaking to each other in "real life."
>
> But . . . nothing I said in my earlier post suggested that I think  
> topics should be shut down, that topics on science or chemistry are  
> inappropriate or "silly," or that whatever anybody might write is  
> pointless, stupid, or "off-bounds."   I choose not to talk about  
> step wedges and equations, but that's just me.  I read most every  
> post here, regardless--even detailed comments on processes about  
> which I know nothing-- hell, I didn't even use the delete key when  
> we got to pink thongs-- or was it a thong?  Hmm . . .
>
> But I digress.  My point is-- I agree with you.  What made you think  
> I didn't?   Just because I said I would have been turned off by all  
> that chemistry in a beginning alt photo class/photography class?   
> Well, I would have been.  And I personally wouldn't teach a  
> beginning printing class that way, either.  That's not to say that  
> anything anyone has written about all this is wrong, or how someone  
> else might teach is wrong, or what they've said is  
> "inappropriate."   Frankly, I don't think what I've said is,  
> either.   And if I ever thought I had the ability, in a post no- 
> less, to shut down a conversation-- then, wow-- I'm a better writer  
> than I ever knew possible.
>
> I will say that I've taken all kinds of classes over the decades  
> with some really excellent teachers-- amazing artists, some of whom  
> are actually "famous" and some of whom aren't-- but all really good  
> at what they do, and how they teach in a classroom.  I'm thankful  
> that I've always learned something in every art class I've ever  
> taken, and that not one of those teachers has ever sent me running  
> for the exit.
>
> One last point-- I'm a pretty direct person, Mark-- in emails,  
> posts, and in real life.  Whatever I post here, I'd also say the  
> same thing in person.  No double meanings, no "inside" jokes, and no  
> reading between the lines with me.  What I say is usually what I  
> mean, and mostly it's just my opinion.
>
> To answer your last question, though, I suspect the reason so many  
> list members don't post and only lurk-- is because they're terrified  
> of expressing an opinion, and then having someone else post, and  
> first, of course, mention how long they themselves have been a list  
> member, and then go on to "attack" the poster and post they're  
> commenting on, based on ideas and opinions that the poster never  
> actually expressed or thought.  Yep, that's what I think.  Again,  
> just my opinion.
>
> Oh wait.  I forgot.  :)   Carry on.
>
> ~Diana
>
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:52 PM, ender100 at aol.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Diana,
>>
>>
>> I won't venture to comment on the creativity of your marital >  
>> relationship, but I would like to comment about posting on the list  
>> > and what is "appropriate."
>>
>>
>> When I first came on the list I enjoyed lurking and gleefully read  
>> > all the posts until one day the topic of Pyro came up and there  
>> were > seemingly endless posts on the topic.  Since I did not use  
>> Pyro, it > wasn't all that interesting and eventually I thought I  
>> would have to > shoot myself if I read another post on the topic.   
>> Later it was gum > stain tests that tested my ability to maintain  
>> concentration.  > However, since that time I've totally reversed my  
>> views on this issue.
>>
>>
>> I feel at this point that there is a real need for tolerance on >  
>> topics and even the quantity of posts on topics.  I am not saying >  
>> that pissing matches on topics are appropriate, unless they are >  
>> truly entertaining and witty.  True, every list has a few  
>> compulsive > responders, but that is the nature of the human  
>> condition.
>>
>>
>> Through the benevolence of people like Kees, Gord before him, and >  
>> others, we have an alt photo list.  Beyond that, the list, in a >  
>> sense, belongs to "the people"  and members should be able to post  
>> > and discuss whatever they feel is relevant, as long as it is >  
>> reasonably on topic.  Though, I do find that little anecdotes that  
>> > people share about their personal lives, such as Chris's pink >  
>> thongs, makes them more "real" and helps to fill in the blanks >  
>> regarding who the list members are.
>>
>>
>> I think posts about the art, the craft, and the science of alt  
>> photo > should all be welcomed—I don't see that any one category  
>> should be > considered less appropriate.  The recent molarity  
>> polarity > discussions have been interesting to some and not so to  
>> others, but > then what difference does that make.  Is there a  
>> topic that Everyone > is passionate about and wants to discuss?  I  
>> doubt it.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps I am a bit sensitive to the issue of the "science" of alt >  
>> photo being considered a silly topic in light of the Sarah Palin/ 
>> Tea > Party movement "ignorance of science and facts" is to be  
>> applauded—> but then that is venturing off-topic.  As they always  
>> say, you have > a Delete Key if you don't want to read a thread on  
>> the list.  We use > our personal "delete key" all the time (without  
>> thinking about it > twice) when we read the news, choose a book,  
>> watch television, and > surf the web.
>>
>>
>> I think that placing topics off bounds or silly does more to hurt >  
>> the list than help the list.  It inhibits people.  The list had, I  
>> > believe over 500 members, of which only perhaps 10% posted >  
>> regularly.  Why don't the rest of the members post?  Do they fear >  
>> they will be laughed at or made fun of or branded wackos for >  
>> venturing to post a thought or question that someone who posts >  
>> frequently might criticize?
>>
>>
>> I say give peace a chance...ooops, wrong topic... I say give people  
>> > a chance to express themselves freely on the list as long as they  
>> do > it in a respectful fashion.  If they don't, the list owner can  
>> > easily bounce them off, as Gord did in the past when "unnamed" >  
>> persons pushed the rhetoric beyond the limits of respectful >  
>> discourse.  Clearly a small percentage of people have an adolescent  
>> > need either be the center of attention and will foment arguments  
>> > just to remain there, or have past grudges that cause them to  
>> return > to the list for revenge and to destroy the list—but they  
>> are easily > deleted too by the list owners Big Delete Key in the  
>> Sky.  ;)
>>
>>
>> OK, back to my closet.
>>
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>>
>>
>> Mark Nelson
>> www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
>> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>> PDNPrint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo