Judy
No, of course it wasn't necessary to do this! (Unless you want to add evidence
to the US humour deficit theory.)
I think Luciana has it about right:
<<Is it just me or is this a silly thread? If you teach it or do it, just
teach it and do it. Of course silver is a part of the process - it
always has been. Most people seem to know what non-silver denotes,
and if they don't the world will hardly stop spinning on it's axis.
Let the folks who have to market our workshops call it anything they wish.
Whether you call it Non-silver or Hand-coated Emuslsions (or Emulsions for
that matter) - people will get the general idea. Some of you must have
entirely
to much free time (including me I guess - this is kinda fun).
Alternative processes or alternative photography or alt-photo are all
reasonably descriptive and all-embracing titles and even have a certain if
slight acceptance outside of the practitioners.
Non-silver processes is a term already in use and I understand it to exclude
the processes that include silver. End of that particular discussion so far as
I'm concerned, although I know that over time a num,ber of words in the
English language have come to mean more or less their exact opposite.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows, Dragonfire and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures & Gay Pride: http://www.dragonfire.net/~gallery/
and: http://www.speltlib.demon.co.uk/
<<
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Peter Marshall wrote:
> On your side of the Atlantic you may be able to call kallitype and salt
prints
> non-silver, but over here we know too much!
>
You're probably right, Peter. I'm sure none of the people over here who've
been printing van dyke brown, salted paper and kallitype, among others,
since 1968 or so, learning them and teaching them in courses called
"Non-Silver Photography," know that there is silver in them!
Is it necessary to point out some of the other inconsistencies and back
formations we use every day in language for convenience >>
Grafist@aol.com (much deleted!)
----------