another day of snobby hobbies in which they trump each others experience with their theory. basically, they complain that they weren’t consulted before the person proceeded to built something. Too bad the builder showed it on their net-forum. I understand the builder was proud. Bringing back their memories of 60 years ago. Even, perhaps, routing traffic to their YouTube Channel.

who knows… motives always are overlapping functions.

another sample: an original Lomo effect –edge fog, light leaks during exposure of the plastic back camera. Film fog on edges, making fingers of light, flare of plastic lens, over-exposed highlights — all these. This is the fundamental of the school of making do with the basic camera to learn to see without the camera– that was part of the Diana age that was recovered in the Lomo revival of film. The imperfection as affirmation of something other.

Anyhow, the amateur cameras and chemical club sees these as chemical effects. So be it. They have discovered brush development. Ferricyanide (oh my, that is dangerous they opine; they fear — too bad they don’t know)

Too bad they don’t know Eugene Smith, along with many others, used overprinting and bleach back regularly. Chapters in books; handouts from Emulsion Companies.

As well: perpetual need to make pigment prints with partial knowledge.

Notice the ongoing threads: partial knowledge, gathered together to support and sustain a dominate opinion. Reads like talk-radio.

try before deny
/ koraks and the soft brag
they know more than they do
seeing the way of film

... ektar /photrio thread\\\ granting permission from the back office of soft woods
Well, you're not too hot on electrical engineering, and I happen to have no interest in sports, so I think we can call it even.

Improvement:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-single-LED-light-glow-in-multiple-colours
A Study on the Alternative Process for the Toxicity Print: of Gum Bichromate 4-Color Gelatin Pigment Process using DAS