Given the chance, most kids (little ones through college) seem to be quite fascinated with the real historical processes (or at a minimum silver gelatin with an enlarger)

I had a college claim that he was making woodcut prints. When I asked him about them I discovered that he was making woodcut-looking prints on an Epson 9800. I feel that not making that distinction, up front, constitutes a lie.

I look at faux and instagram images as affectations as opposed to letting digital be digital. Students who start in digital instead of analog don’t even know why the dodge and burn tool in photoshop are the shapes they are!

By the same right, some of my digital prints could be looked at as affectations since they mimic sepia toned or other warm toned prints.

This video does the heavy lifting. I followed this vid step-by-step and produced a few fine, fine salt prints, regardless of information or inaccuraccies the video may contain–how would I know anyway? I think to get started satisfying the creative impulse leads to refined methods, further learning, and, ultimately, something that I really like…and then, perhaps something that others can judge by their standards.

Thanks a million for this. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate clear, illustrative instruction, especially in a world where people can get really fussy and acane to the exclusion of those who really want to participate.

http://web.me.com/j.k.schreiber/JKSchreiber/Articles/Entries/2001/8/1_Pyro_Colorized_Digital_Negatives_for_Pt_Pd_with_the_Epson_1280.html

Alternatively, go to my website http://www.jkschreiber.com and navigate to the articles page.

By the way, these articles and the methods they describe are a bit dated now. Both Clay and I now use variations on Ron Reeder’s QTR digital negative method.

~ Keith