Re: I kid you not, here's a new alt process

Chris--

Oh, the morphine process. . . well, of course. It's relatively
painless.

So, are you, perchance, licensed to *copy* those microfilm reels. . . ?

FWIW, it is possible physiologically to stand, walk around, or
treadmill while reading--some options that might spare (or pare) your
butt.

AND several . . . er. . . acquaintances of mine attempted the
marijuana process back in the 70's. Sorry to say, the results were not
so good. Everyone went off to buy Doritos and the prints just never
quite got printed. . . . I dunno.

Anyway, another friend of mine has been hard at work processing with
Viagra. Looks like there's real promise in this one, if only he can
get rid of the odd blue tints.

Back to the reels (seriously)-- If you think they are worth holding on
to beyond April, they can be copied (with permission, of course). I
might have a source of funds for the enterprise--if copyright
restrictions don't apply. Feel free to contact me off-list.

Regards to all,
John
__________________________
John Campbell
PhotoGecko Studios & Gallery
1413 South First Street
Austin, Tx 78704

(512) 797-9375

www.photogecko.com

On Saturday, January 17, 2004, at 09:53 PM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:

> I've hit the motherlode of all times; this week, I got 24 reels of the
> British Journal of Photography, from 1860 to 1910, for gum research,
> to use
> until April. I'm in hog heaven, except my butt is gonna get so big,
> sitting
> there for hours and hours watching microfilmed pages glide by (how off
> topic
> can I get). Anyway, I had to report to you all a new process I came
> across
> in 1867--the "morphine process". Now, granted, I didn't take the time
> to
> read thru it because I really have to be narrow in my search or else
> I'll go
> crazy (this is 50 years of a weekly journal or 2600 journals) but the
> first
> time I saw it go by I thought it was a joke, until it kept mentioning
> the
> process issue after issue. Maybe the current generation can start a
> marijuana process? Then again, maybe I'm the ONLY one on the list who
> hasn't
> ever heard of this before.
> Chris
>
>
>
Received on Sat Jan 17 22:25:11 2004