[alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!

Wed Jul 28 22:47:13 GMT 2010

Am I right to think that a jar of ammonium thiocyanate solution would still
be quite usable, subject only to possible difficulties in measurement?  If
so, dry storage is less critical than it is for something like sodium
sulphite, which seems to turn into insoluble rocks when it gets damp.  Do
any common alt photo chemicals actually decompose if they get damp while
stored in a jar?

Don Sweet

----- 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: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:41 AM
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!

> DEAR LIST,
> This thread has been very interesting.  When I first posted with the
> "Desiccate" subject, I received two posts with suggestions as to how to
keep
> my powder dry (Ammonium Thiocyanate, that is) and the rest, under the same
> "subject" were of a different nature.
> But, if I may return to the topic, does anyone else have any
> suggestions how to keep my pound of Ammonium Thiocyanate from turning into
a
> plastic jar of solution with some crystals at the bottom?
> 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
> ender100 at aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:06 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo