Dance of the Molecules

[tgtaylor]

Dance of the Molecules

I coat a sheet of paper with a solution of ammonium chloride and wait for it dry.
Then onto the sheet I coat a solution of silver nitrate and also wait for it to dry.
An amazing thing then take place and the components of the two solutions change “partners:”
For the two solutions now become silver chloride and ammonium nitrate.
But I'm not done yet!
Before fixing I “tone” the print in platinum and the silver now becomes platinum!
And the color of the light reflecting from the prints surface is the light of platinum!

Can the inks do that?

Thomas

[Heroique]

Spoken in the voice of the mad darkroom chemist? :D

[Dan Fromm]

Could you be confusing process with result?

[Sal Santamaura]

...Can the inks do that?...No, but so what? They're simply another tool set used to make prints.

Where's Ken's "rubber stamp?" Oh, yes, here it is:

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/yawnboring.jpg

[paulr]

When I'm in the mood for amazing chemical transformations, I go to the kitchen.

[tgtaylor]

Can the inks do that?

Well I guess not. Norman Mailer would probably say: "Ink don't dance!"

Thomas

[Heroique]

Norman Mailer would probably say: "Ink don't dance!"

Speaking of writers, I see some excellent poetry here.

Really, all it takes is a few well-chosen line breaks.

Not only is the suspense gripping, but the clever dance metaphor – kept alive in the third stanza w/ "changing partners" – is quite entertaining. At poem's end, I think the "light of platinum" is impressive imagery indeed, and a satisfying resolution too. Great job, Thomas.


Dance of the Molecules

I coat a sheet of paper
With a solution of ammonium chloride
And wait for it dry

Then onto the sheet
I coat a solution of silver nitrate
And also wait for it to dry

An amazing thing then takes place
And the components of the two solutions
Change partners

For the two solutions
Now become silver chloride
And ammonium nitrate

But I'm not done yet!
Before fixing I “tone” the print in platinum
And the silver now becomes platinum!

And the color of the light
Reflecting from the print's surface
Is the light of platinum!

Can the inks do that?

[Vaughn]

Molecules Smalzecules

Try to imagine the electrons streaming around making all those yes/no decisions in our various devices...amazing! But then I have enough trouble mentally picturing my van's engine turning at 3000 rpm and the spark plugs sparking that fast without messing up.

[tgtaylor]

I hope that everyone realizes that the power company is not supplying you with electrons to “ ...make all those yes/no decisions in our various devices...” There are no supply trucks pulling up to power plants an off-loading barrels of electrons; and when you get the power company's bill there is no mention of electrons on it.

But when you order silver, gold and platinum from your supplier you will get a bill for the silver, gold and platinum and you will actually place those precious metals on your paper. You consume precious metals. You don't consume electrons.

Thomas

[Struan Gray]

There's an age at which this kind of thing is charming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HttF5HVYtlQ

[Sal Santamaura]

I hope that everyone realizes that the power company is not supplying you with electrons to “ ...make all those yes/no decisions in our various devices...”...when you order silver, gold and platinum from your supplier you will get a bill for the silver, gold and platinum and you will actually place those precious metals on your paper. You consume precious metals. You don't consume electrons...I need not expend effort responding to that. It earns my new boilerplate, first used in another thread:


...what you've posted strikes me as absolute nonsense...Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?Seems a nice complement to Ken's "rubber stamp."

[Bruce Watson]

Can the inks do that?

Does it matter?

But for the record, the inks aren't trying to do that. The inks are trying, and succeeding, in doing something different from that.

All the different printing methods coexist. The inks aren't animate; they aren't trying to take anything away from you. Lay down your fears, they hinder your progress as an artist.

[Maris Rusis]

No, but so what? They're simply another tool set used to make prints.

Where's Ken's "rubber stamp?" Oh, yes, here it is:

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/yawnboring.jpg

I suspect it's only boring for those whose response to a picture is based on nothing deeper than what it looks. Under those circumstances all pictures are equivalent, indistinguishable, and interchangeable. This is the case for most people at most times. There are rare folks interested in knowing the picture-making process. This knowledge reveals the relationship of the picture to the subject matter. It also reveals the specific decisions the creative artist made in using one medium as opposed to another. Knowing all this enhances the aware viewer's appreciation of the picture. The don't think, it's all the same approach is just a recipe for vacuous slack-jawed wonder.

Different media offer different qualities. Those seeking picture qualities that only ink-jet prints deliver are wasting their time looking at photographs. And vice versa.

[Sal Santamaura]

I suspect it's only boring for those whose response to a picture is based on nothing deeper than what it looks...Implying that those who view a photograph and respond based on how it looks are shallow. More nonsense.


...There are rare folks interested in knowing the picture-making process...And those "rare" observers are called "other photographers." While they might also respond to the photograph, what you're describing is an evaluation of tools used to make it. A separate and distinct thing. Nothing wrong with it, but not the same as responding to the photograph.


...This knowledge reveals the relationship of the picture to the subject matter. It also reveals the specific decisions the creative artist made in using one medium as opposed to another...These words convey nothing meaningful. A completely gelatin silver workflow reveals no more about how a photograph relates to its subject matter than does a completely digital one. Nor can one discern anything about specific photographers' decisions from the tools used. See Jerry Uelsmann's work and compare it to Photoshop manipulations. No difference.


...Knowing all this enhances the aware viewer's appreciation of the picture. The don't think, it's all the same approach is just a recipe for vacuous slack-jawed wonder...Once more, you denigrate as vacuous viewers who evaluate photographs based on looking at them as the objects they are. Ad hominem attacks demean the attacker; they don't elevate the attacker's work.


...Different media offer different qualities. Those seeking picture qualities that only ink-jet prints deliver are wasting their time looking at photographs. And vice versa.This subtle, insidious use of language that demeans digitally printed photographs by inferring they are "other" than photographs is not only wrong, it's doomed to failure as a means of promoting and distinguishing an all gelatin silver workflow. In my opinion, it creates a backlash that might do just the opposite.

Maris, perhaps you haven't seen my other recent posts reacting to these attacks. Note that, except for snapshots and occasional publication illustrations, I prefer the gelatin silver workflow for my own work. Like you, I am a member at APUG. I can generally ignore the religious way in which conversations there knock digital, although I'd prefer it simply not be mentioned at that site. This forum is different. All tools are open for discussion here.


Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?

[paulr]

I suspect it's only boring for those whose response to a picture is based on nothing deeper than what it looks.

So ... those wishing to not be bored bored must assume your pictures are deeper than they look?

[tgtaylor]

Originally Posted by Maris Rusis:
"...This knowledge reveals the relationship of the picture to the subject matter. It also reveals the specific decisions the creative artist made in using one medium as opposed to another..."

Rebuttal posted bySAL SANTAMURA:
"These words convey nothing meaningful. A completely gelatin silver workflow reveals no more about how a photograph relates to its subject matter than does a completely digital one. Nor can one discern anything about specific photographers' decisions from the tools used..."

With the assumption that by "silver gelatin workflow" Sal is referring to silver-based (aka traditional) photography as opposed to a digital workflow, can anyone show Sal where he is completely and unequivocally wrong?

Anyone?

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Nothing exists until the brain converts an optical image into electrical impulses and then your brain reassembles them into something "all in your mind" anyway, unless of course there is ink on your retina, in which case you can't see anything. But at least silver, gold, and platinum can pay your medical bill to get it removed.

[tgtaylor]

Please no butt talk here Drew.

Is there anyone out there that can educate Sal...anyone?

Thomas

[paulr]

Sal seems educated to me. He's rebutted a nonsense argument with a coherent one.

Not just a coherent one, but one that seems sound in light of my 15 years in the darkroom and 10 years pushing pixels around.

[tgtaylor]

Anyone out there?

[Erik Larsen]

Please educate us Thomas. I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across? Granted, I'm a little slow...

[Sal Santamaura]

Please educate us Thomas. I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across?...It's easy. Thomas, Maris and others try to make the case that a pure gelatin silver photographic workflow is inherently superior to anything digital-based. The reason they do this is because they are also attempting to stand out in a crowd of people hoping to sell prints; they want prospective purchasers to believe the "real" prints they're offering are worthwhile, while digital prints are neither real photographs nor worthy of consideration. It's called "ghosting the competition" and is as old a marketing ploy as exists. Truthfulness is not required for this activity. Meaningful sentences are not required for this activity. Pulling off a con simply requires bamboozling the marks.

Here I come along and start responding to nonsense digital-trashing threads, but I include in each rebuttal the fact that I don't do any serious digital work. I am an amateur who never sells prints, prefers an all gelatin-silver workflow for myself, yet I call out the BS about digital. They don't know what to do with me.

As a result, time after time, the desperate reaction from their corner is ad hominem attacks against me or anyone else who defends a partially- or fully-digital workflow. Ad hominem attacks demean the attacker, but don't elevate their work. Let the readers judge what's going on.

[paulr]

I don't have any way to know if they have a cynical agenda. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they believe in those value judgements. The trouble for me starts when someone tries to universalize their personal tastes ... to rationalize why what they like (or are familiar with) must be superior for everyone. Attempts to do so always involve the kinds of logical fallacies Sal's been skewering.

The subject's tedious, but I'm glad for the rebuttals, lest too many people lazily accept the reasoning at face value.

[tgtaylor]

Please don't try to wiggle your way out of it Sal. Here is what you wrote:

Rebuttal posted by SAL SANTAMURA:

"These words convey nothing meaningful. A completely gelatin silver workflow reveals no more about how a photograph relates to its subject matter than does a completely digital one. Nor can one discern anything about specific photographers' decisions from the tools used..."

Again, is there anyone out there that can show Sal where he is wrong?

Thomas

[Sal Santamaura]

...Again, is there anyone out there that can show Sal where he is wrong?...Certainly not you. :rolleyes:

Continuing to make the discussion about me only highlights how nonsensical this entire chemical-digital "superiority" comparison is.

[tgtaylor]

Sal – you make a completely asinine statement and when called to task for it you respond by accusing others of claiming “superiority” which no one did.

Again, is there anyone out there that can show Sal where he is wrong?

Anyone?

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal – you make a completely asinine statement...Again, making it about me. Not helping your "case." Nor does truncating my quote, leaving off "See Jerry Uelsmann's work and compare it to Photoshop manipulations. No difference."


...you respond by accusing others of claiming “superiority” which no one did...Oh yes you did. As did Maris. In this thread. Others make the claim in other threads too. Nice try, but it's plain, despite attempts to obfuscate.


...Again, is there anyone out there that can show Sal where he is wrong? Keep asking. Other digital-trashers might show up to support your trashing of digital tools. If and when they do, I'll skewer their nonsense too. :D

[tgtaylor]

There you go again Sal - wiggling like a worm on a hook accusing those whom [N]you[/B] attacked as being "digital-trashers" whose only purpose is "...to stand out in a crowd of people hoping to sell prints; they want prospective purchasers to believe the "real" prints they're offering are worthwhile, while digital prints are neither real photographs nor worthy of consideration." Jeez, where do you get this crap?

Again, is there anyone out there that can offer a rejoinder to Sal's statement as set out above. Or, alternatively, is there anyone out there that can prove Sal is correct?

Anyone?

Thomas

[Ken Lee]

At this point it's best if the interested parties continue their discussion offline.