Re: Research Question - Darkrooms closed?

Dick,

I congratulate you on your efforts. I think Historical Processes is
probably as good a term as any. Sometimes perhaps Hysterical Processes might be
appropriate, but that's a whole other story involving a variety of nuances in
working with these processes. I do think Silver should be included at this
point also—Sam Wang and Sandy King both ecouraged me to word the title of my book
with that thought in mind.

I also think that your efforts are very timely in that with the avalanche of
people going to digital output, there are some discerning folks who are
beginning to feel a yearning for the beauty and quality of a final print that is
only possible with the Historic Processes. Regardless of their workflow, be it
film to scanner, or digital camera, there is a growing need for high quality
methods and workflows to get from the original image capture to prints that
have a lasting beauty and are hand made.

Good luck with your efforts!

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
Purchase the book @
www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
Credit Card & Paypal now accepted
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com

In a message dated 10/10/04 11:02:33 AM, richsul@earthlink.net writes:

> I have decided to use the term "historical processes" instead of
> alternative or non-silver. It goes over better in the academic setting.
> Alternative sounds a lot like it might involve acupuncture, and
> non-silver... well!  My school had used the term "obsolete processes" in
> some contexts if one can imagine that, and then to think the school also
> teaching business marketing!
>
> Perhaps "historical" is not perfect but does have a sophisticated ring to
> it. I give a heavy dose of history in my classes. I go into a lot of detail
> as to living in a world where people were not inundated with images minute
> by minute. That the search for a permanent process, and I focus on the
> invention of carbon printing, which was serious business involving sealed
> envelopes being sent by courier under guard to the local scientific
> societies, patents and massive follow up lawsuits. Students today can
> easily view these processes as quaint photo 101 endeavors and miss the
> tremendous impact the development of photography had on society in their
> day. I also have a view that much of the early development was centered on
> making printing plates and not parlor pictures. I believe Niepce and
> Daguerre were attempting to make a printing plate and had to settle for the
> parlor print. Note that it was many years before a decent photomechanical
> process was developed and photomechanical reproductions outnumber prints by
> megafactors. (new word?)
>
Received on Sun Oct 10 11:54:06 2004