Fwd: RE: jibber jabber - naive - now dag

>Well, and tonal range. I want the widest range, finest appearance. (Well,
>"Don't we all!"---right?) <grin> Not necessarily the biggest images, in
>fact small is compelling for it's own reasons. Portable is definitely
>appealing, but being "cumbersome" would not eliminate stop me -- I have a
>truckload of studio STUFF at home already. If it wasn't for all my
>art-crap, I cold live on a boat. :)
>
>At 11:06 AM 11/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>I am biased to the Becquerel method since its the one I do and the only
>>one Ive tried. People will say that the downsideto Becquerel is a slower
>>plate, less tonality range and contrast issues. But you dont have to mess
>>with bromide or mercury and that is a HUGE factor for me. Iodine is
>>tricky, but not so dangerous as the other chemicals. If you are careful
>>and efficient enough with how you handle crystal iodine, you dont even
>>need a lab setup. Some here will gasp at this previous statement, but I
>>have fumed plates in a hotel bathroom before. Now would I recommend that
>>to someone, absolutely not! But with bromide and heated mercury, I
>>wouldnt even attempt to create the proper setup to use these chemical, so
>>Im not that stupid or crazy!
>>
>>
>>
>>If your biggest reason for trying daguerreotypes is the virtual grainless
>>appearance, which process you use doesnt matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>-Chris
>>
>><http://www.christopherlovenguth.com/>www.christopherlovenguth.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Marie Wohadlo [mailto:mwohadlo@press.uchicago.edu]
>>Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:49 AM
>>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>>Subject: Re: jibber jabber - naive
>>
>>
>>
>>Wow. I think I'm naive! What a waste of time that (the 'trolling') sounds
>>like!
>>
>>But....
>>
>>Thanks to everyone for the dag. suggestions. After much emailing and
>>searching I found a workshop next August. I'm going to try to get to it!
>>But, a question (one which might be quite controversial).....what is the
>>downside to the 'safer' dag method (the one without the mercury....the
>>one that I don't know how to spell!). I'm assuming that the more
>>dangerous, the better, more refined, the results. The biggest reasons, to
>>me, to do dags is the virtual grainless appearance.....the perfection in
>>image, the pursuit if perfection itself! Thoughts? Opinions? Facts? Anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 07:40 AM 11/19/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>>Best intentions - perhaps to a great degree?? However, I want to remind
>>everyone that on more than one occasion we have found an "echo troll' on
>>this and other lists. For anyone that doesn't recognize the reference "echo
>>troll", it's effectively one person with two different emails subscribed to
>>a given list or two different people working together under the plan of "you
>>lie and I'll swear to it".
>>
>>My two cents,
>>
>>Nick
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Marie Wohadlo" <mwohadlo@press.uchicago.edu>
>>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>>Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 7:23 AM
>>Subject: jibber jabber
>>
>> > I guess we just have to believe that we all have the best intentions,
>>right?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>Marie Wohadlo
>>Electronic Publishing Specialist, Information Technology
>>Office phone: (773) 753-3374 Office number: 374C Wing: 3E
>>email: mwohadlo@press.uchicago.edu
>
>Marie Wohadlo
>Electronic Publishing Specialist, Information Technology
>Office phone: (773) 753-3374 Office number: 374C Wing: 3E
>email: mwohadlo@press.uchicago.edu

Marie Wohadlo
Electronic Publishing Specialist, Information Technology
Office phone: (773) 753-3374 Office number: 374C Wing: 3E
email: mwohadlo@press.uchicago.edu
Received on Fri Nov 19 10:19:36 2004