Why are you so angry?
A question was asked, I offered a suggestion. You responded in what I
interpret as a rather angry and negative manner. The phrase "flame" may be
a bit extreme but I would suggest that in the future you offer your
technical advice without the judgemental attitude.
I never claimed that there was good technique involved in what I mentioned.
I never claimed that my friend had invented "something New and Exciting"
only that she had obtained an effect similar to what I intrepreted the
question to be about. (Yeah, I know it's tortured English but if I read the
sentence enough times it makes sense) For your information she was able to
control the process and repeat the effects to a considerable extent, far
more than would have been "a screwup."
If someone's ideas and images are of no intrest to you then I fully agree
that you should not waste your time on them; however, they may speak to
someone else and that person would be entirely justified in giving those
ideas and images serious attention. The old saw about "one man's meat...."
comes to mind. Do we have to put down others because we don't agree with
their aesthetics? Had I offered a suggestion that was not feasable, a
response suggesting why that would not work would be helpful, but accusing
someone you do not know of being a "Cheap Photographer" is a bit extereme.
Reminds me of earlier discussions in which we were told "Combination X-Y-Z
will NOT work!" Of course, for just about every non-workable combination
someone on this forum has "claimed" they have no problem with that
combination.
BTW, my copy of the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography devotes about a page
and a half to the subject of "physical development" although their
discussion is mainly about using the technique to compensate for
underexposure. Also BTW, the issue of fog is easily taken care of :
1. Turn off the safelight.
2. If highlights are fogged clear them with bleach.
3. Experiment with the addition of restrainer to the developer.
4. Experiment some more and have fun.
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com <Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: gold
>
>>>>A friend of mine was working in a rather strange (strange to me, a kind
>of
>straight laced "pure photographer") fashion and got the kind of effect that
>I think you are looking for. She refered to the process as "physical
>development" and it was acheived by using EXHAUSTED developer and very
>long
>development times. When she did this the result was what I refered to as
>"gilded" (spelling?) and although it was a purely photographic image it
>looked like it was made of gold (sometimes silver) metal. Beyond that, I
>can' t give you much information on just how she acheived the effect.
>
>
>Physical Development? Sounds like a Cheap Photographer who is too lazy to
>use fresh chemicals. The "Effect" is caused by extreme depletion of the
>chemicals in the developer. This is clearly poor practice and nothing new.
>I have seen this "Effect" for the last 20 years or so. It is not to be
>termed a special, new process; rather, a lack of knowledge in the darkroom.
>Remember, you simply can't add fresh developer to old developer without
>corruption. I hear people on the list talking about replenishing, and it
>can be done. However, not with the same developers, but rather with
>Replenishers. When developers are exhausted, they are exhausted and require
>more than the addition of fresh developer can provide.
>
>Also, long development times can lead to fogging. This can be caused by the
>safelight and/or what is termed "Chemical Fogging" I am amazed at how many
>people who do not know better, and give a new name to a process they do not
>understand. They have a screwup and term it something New and Exciting. Or
>they do not follow instructions and recommendations and deem it a new
>procedure. The fundamentals seem to be lacking these days and it is sad.
>
>Finally, do not think ill of me, and flame me if that is your desire, but I
>feel strongly about this. Use Alt Techniques, but remember, not everything
>is an ALT process. Some of these ideas are pure crap and deserves
>absolutely NO attention whatsoever.
>
>RM
>
>