Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: negatives (slightly off topic)
- It's a calotype in essence, the way Fox Talbot did it first.
On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Anthony Archer wrote:
> Reminds me of the street photographer in South America who took
> people's pictures with his view camera, using photo paper and no
> film. He would load the film holder with paper, insert it in the
> camera and expose the scene on it. He would then tray develop it
> in a dark box, and then mount the developed "print" on a holder in
> fromt of his camera. As the "print" was reversed, he would shoot
> a copy of it on another sheet of photo paper, and then develop it
> the same way. Since it was a negative of a negative, it was now a
> positive. Sold it to the customer and they were both happy.
> And then there is my favorite Calvin and Hobbes cartoon-
> Calvin: Dad, how come old photographs are always black and white?
> Didn't they have color film back then?
> Dad: Sure they did. In fact, those old photographs are in color.
> It's just the world was black and white then.
> Calvin: Really?
> Dad: Yep. The world didn't turn color until sometime in the 1930s,
> and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too.
> Calvin: That's really weird.
> Dad: Well, truth is stranger than fiction.
> Calvin: But then why are old paintings in color?! If their world was
> black and white, wouldn't artists have painted it that way?
> Dad: Not necessarily. A lot of great artists were insane.
> Calvin: But... but how could they have painted in color anyway?
> their paints have been shades of gray back then?
> Dad: Of course, but they turned colors like everything else did in the
> Calvin: So why didn't old black and white photos turn color too?
> Dad: Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?
> Calvin: The world is a complicated place, Hobbes.
> Hobbes: Whenever it seem that way, I take a nap in a tree and wait for
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]