Forum Follies

The take away is more than one, you say. What do forums do… they seem to wonder what they do well; paticularly after they’ve been running a long time. Even the simple questions lead to toxic shock.

Summary: You can’t talk about the meaning, nor the nature of photography. You also can’t see it on the internet, therefore, you are wasting your time and their bandwidth showing pictures on the web. Further, talking tech is pretty much wasted since you can’t tell what the pictures will look like. Even worse, you don’t know if the person offering their instruction is capable of anything other than web boasting. The circle seems complete. Actually, it seems like a spiral. Smaller and smaller.

So, you can offer to buy and sell. That, at least is about as far as we’ve gotten. Except, how do you trust in this circle. After all we can’t know if the words or the pictures of the items are correct either. Do we?

crits are tough. they do require shared language. not necessarily what can be brought from experience as an insurance inspector.

Note Mr Katz’s sig asserts his presence on the forum has been since 2008. Membership claims have meaning beyond the factoid they’d seem to have.

They hold desire, and need to belong. Why else would he return.

trust the print, if you have seen it.

web should display what print showed from trusted source

only way to know is to know ahead.

shades of communication theory and post-modern death

perhaps they are headed to a post-forum internet.

Which leads me to a wayback time. Laura Gilpin asked CCA to match a color litho that had been made of her “Rainbow” — it, of course couldn’t be done as a type-C. It would have been very difficult to do as a dye-transfer. One form doesn’t complete an image, nor does it make it less useful.

Gilpin: Rainbow. Amon Carter attempts to show the print. Greyscale on side provides uniform meter for those who try.

“The proof print we sent you of the rainbow more closely matches your original than the litho does.” [12/68]

Even her original wasn’t what she wanted after seeing what a lithographer could/had done with the image.

Making Film: Subbings

Kodak’s ‘corona’ people where: Yost & Heidke — US3582333 as example
Yost & Willison — US3573916 as example
back around ’12 there was a corona discharge unit made by DIY — posted on YT
corona discharge has short utility as subbing — 24hrs or so. 
3M patents show using the corona to get the subbing started — 
— charge it
— coat with your gel+ components that aren’e light sensitive. this permits you to store a subbed roll for use later

corona discharge causes coating (partial reversal) problems in color materials if they are coated soon (an hour) after being charged. a Yost patent discusses.

an earlier, more fundamental approach is in
 PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM SUBBED WITH HARDENED GelatinGale F. Nadeau and Clemens B. Starck, Rochester, N. Y., assignors to Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, N. Y., a corporation of New Jersey Application September 16, 1939, Serial No. 295,268

Debunk: Who Made Matrix film? An absurd answer: US Military (army) . That is foolish; the military doesn’t make anything. Not the US military. They may contract for it from some private firm, such as Kodak, or Defender, or ANSCO, or DuPont, but they don’t make anything — not even bullets and boots.

Kilborne made CCA (Tampa) matrix film. Later, they coated Dr. Patterson’s (DTC; Houston) orthomatrix. It had too fine a grain. Matrix film should be a cubic grain, irregular distribution sizes for easier tanning. Defender /DuPont was an original maker of matrix emulsion. Technicolor purchased from Kodak. Fuji made matrix film .

Namedrop: Bob Pace. In NYC he printed for Penn; later he was at Graphic Process Co. (Hollywood) and Pace Color Prints. Then, at Frog Prince (San Francisco)

One place of learning: High School of Printing (49th Street)