tholte

I had no talent painting so I took up coloring my B&W (and color) negatives with felt tip pens and printing on color paper. If I was not happy with the color, I would then soak the negatives in water, photo-flo, dry and try again. It is easier (obviously) to work on larger negatives but most of what I do now is on 35mm. I have posted a few of these on PN but have quit doing it because some viewers thought they were photos of paintings or were digitally manipulated. I got tired of explaining what the process was. Coloring color negatives seems strange but you can get some interesting results. Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

I have taken color prints and soaked them in approx 90 degree water for one hour and found that the emulsion peels off easily with no paper residue. When I have tried the same method with B&W RC papers it takes longer (8 hours with some Dawn dishwashing liquid added to the water) and the result is not quite as good. I first started doing this to get positive images from printing my slides. I put the slide in the enlarger, printed on color paper, soaked the color print, peeled off the emulsion, let dry, flattened in a press at low heat between matt board, and then placed on new color paper under a glass plate, exposed and put in color processor to get the new positive print. It is a lot of monkeying around but you get a very unique print. If you are printing a negative, you will get a reversed image, which can also be rather unique. Doing B&W this way is more convenient if you don't have access to a color printer. Feel free to email me if you have any questions, this is a lot of fun to do.

I am Mr. cheapo so here is a few ideas for you: You can buy daylight balanced light bulbs at a camera store for about $8.00ea. You can then buy workshop type aluminum reflectors with sockets at the hardware store. They come with a built in clamp so you will be able to attach it to something. The bulbs burn hot so you have to turn off once in awhile to cool off. Get some white foam core boards for reflectors and some black foam core boards for blocking the light. Get some white sheets to place in front of the lights to act as a diffusor (don't place to close to the hot bulbs). This micky mouse set-up can be had for less than $75.00. You will be surprised at the quality you can achieve with these items. Good luck!!!

I would hang in there if I was you. His childish and sarcastic remarks are echoed by many of his amateurish photos. Many of his images suffer from the same deficiencies that he mocked you for. His arrogant and haughty attitude will catch up to him here on PN and in others areas of his life as well. Good luck!!

Steve,

Here is the Milwaukee way and the people here are the cheapest anywhere in the world. Charge $995.00 and not a penny less or you are screwing yourself. Bring at least ten rolls of film and tell them where to take it to get processed (a professional lab - you're not paying for it). Get half the money up front, the other half when you hand them the film. If they think the price is too high, politely tell them to find someone else - maybe a brother-in-law or uncle that is a photo "expert".

We photograph cemeteries because we want, subconciously, to explore and examine our future place of residence. Most photographers are inquisitive by nature and are curious about the future. I make myself nervous when I find myself wandering around the VA cemetery here in Milwaukee. Great photos by the way!!!

Wonder no more me lad for I have done your research. It took me 34 minutes but it was worth it. According to my figures, you have 26 images that were not commented on and I can make some educated guesses as to why. Numero uno -- 14 of them were in your "Over Quota" presentation. Most of those had no ratings so it is obvious that very few people saw them. Numero dos -- There are 4 images with no comments in your color portfolio. I will assume that these just did not catch anyone's eye - happens all the time. Last but not least, you had 8 B&W photos that were not commented on. Most of these were part of a series so it is easy to see how the viewers missed them. The "untitled" group of images (03,05,07,08) don't seem to fit in with the rest of your B&W work so I think people just skipped over them. All in all, if I was you, I would be very happy with the comments and numerous ratings you have recieved with your high quality work. If you want the list of images with no comments, let me know and I will send them to you. You may be asking yourself,"why would this clown waste his time doing this?" and I would answer thusly -- It was a good excuse to check out your portfolio.

Corey, no it is not. The meek will enherit the earth eventually but not right now.

You may want to think about forking over $25.00. This would entitle you to more critiques without having to change the rules for everyone else.

Bummer that I am about two months late on this, but I have to throw in my two cents worth anyway. Kodak Gold 200 is the best all around film you can buy, if, and a big if it is, if you can print your own color. I have printed with dozens of people over the years that thought you had to buy the expensive pro films to get the best results. Wrong, wrong and more wrong. Before everyone gets in a tizzy, the major malfunction with the film is that you can only get it in 35mm. I can buy four rolls of 24 exp for less than $8.00 (US). The Kodak Gold 100 is also very good. I find that it is just a little bit too slow for me because I hardly ever use a tripod. The Kodak Gold 400 is OK but, if you do your own printing, not as sharp and pleasing as the 200. I don't know how I missed this back in October. Beginners should buy this film like crazy because of the quality and price.

Thanks for this information!!!

I am not trying to be silly, but what is "art"? I have never seen a definition that I thought was any good. If no one knows what "art" is, how can they trust or not trust it? Please feel free to enlighten me.

I seem to like images that have some flaws in them. Nice crisp, clean shots seem rather sterile to me. Plus I realise that many photographers here (myself included) don't have a good scanner so it is difficult to come up with a really perfect image anyway. I take this into account when I am rating, commenting etc. There are also many photographers that do not use (or do not know how to use) photoshop to clean up their images, I take this into account also. I will go for feeling and emotion in an image anytime over technical wizardry. There are many flaws in this whole rating, commenting thing but it still seems like a pretty good system. Thanks, Tim

I do not believe that Ralph Gibson, Keith Carter, Ernst Haas, Robert Frank, Danny Lyon, Dianne Arbus and Richard Avedon collectively would have 7500 slides worth scanning and saving. This is my opinion and I am sticking to it.