<< Subj: Re: Retouching
Date: 96-09-16 04:36:38 EDT
From: j.r.anderson@mds.qmw.ac.uk (j.r.anderson)
Sender: alt-photo-process@cse.unsw.edu.au
Reply-to: alt-photo-process@cse.unsw.edu.au
To: alt-photo-process@cse.unsw.edu.au (Multiple recipients of list)
>>j.r.anderson@mds.qmw.ac.uk (j.r.anderson) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >I'd call Kodak direct. There seems to be alot of confusion of late as
to
>>> >what is and isn't discontinued. Go to the top of the food chain and be
>>> >pushy.
>>> >
>>> >David michael Kennedy
>>>
>>> If it is discontinued, any suggestions for a substitute?
>>>
>>
>>[In reference to Kodak's Reducing Adbrasive]
>>
>>In email, I suggested that the formula might be a very fine
>>pumice suspended in a cosmetic grade lanolin. This could be completely
>>off base, but you might want to try mixing some volcanic ash from Mt.
>>St. Helens (or your nearest volcano) into a small jar of generic
>>lanolin that you can purchase for a few $ at the local pharmacy.
>>(In the UK, would that be a few quid at the local chemist?)
>>
>>Maybe this could at least start off a discussion on the ingredients.
>>
>>Carson Graves
>>carson@ileaf.com
>
>Why bother when we have photoshop ?
>
>pete
An interesting question.... Not all of us have a powerful enough computer,
or a scanner, or the software, or a suitable output facility, or enough
money to pay someone else to do it all for us for every image we would like
to tinker with! This is not a flippant remark, it is meant in all
seriousness. I would love all of the above, but my bank would not.....
I fully accept the practicality, ease and utility of the suggestion, but in
addition to the problems I have just mentioned, perhaps there is something
to
be said for old methods on occasion ("character building"!)
Jonathan Anderson
>>
Jonathan-
couldn't agree with you more!
DMK