Strange Images ~ The How To

[Al Kaplan]

IdeaDog, somehow my mental image of myself is still a 27 year old hippie, but I keep getting appointerd to these damned advisory boards and asked to chair election campaigns. At the same time I remember when the nice elderly lady down the block made some delicious mushroom soup. The print was made beginning of October as part of an exhibit at a local art gallery.

 

[zgeeRF]

Here you go Al:

 

[Al Kaplan]

Thanks, zgeeRF

 

[zgeeRF]

My pleasure!
So what was it? spilled fixer?

 

[Justin Smith]

I'm hoping to catch somebody on the phone later to walk me through it, or perhaps somebody who already has one of the prints will post a scan? You reading this Justin?

Hi Uncle Al, I just came across this thread. I do indeed have the print that you gifted me - a "thank you" card is on its way to you (a PM just didn't seem an appropriate way to express my gratitude to you).

RFFers, this is just a quick and dirty scan (on my crappy flatbed)of the print Al sent to me. The print looks MUCH better in person, although you will get the gist of the effect:

I'll try to post a better rendition on Saturday. What's really cool is that I seem to make out some finger/handprints on the print - the ultimate Maker's Mark! Thank you, Al!

 

[Al Kaplan]

If you click on the picture on my blog it'll get really big and you can see some of the artifacts of the way it was developed. The developer was splattered on to the exposed paper by flicking it from my finger tips, allowed to run across the paper's surface as I tilted it to various angles, some more drops of fresh deverloper were flicked onto some areas of the print, then left for five or more minutes with no movement at all, which produces bromiding of the developer. Then it was tilted a bit this way and that a second time, before going unrinsed unto the fixer, where it got a lot of agitation to stop the developing action. The stark white areas just never received any developer. Some of the developed areas were developed with the fresh second application while others had heavily bromided developer from the first application.

What fascinates me is all the things that people see in these prints that aren't actually part of the underlying photograph while completely missing what features of the photographic image that are there.

Thanks fior posting that Justin. Yes, that is my hand print. I touched it lightly on the surface of the developer in the tray, then pressed it hard against the paper, which was against a sheet of plexiglass. I held it in contact with the paper for a full five minutes, again to get that bromiding effect. In the original print you can plainly make out the lines in my hand and the whorls of my finger prints.

The underlying photograph was shot in the early 1970's for the City of North Miami's Parks and Recreation Department. Those kids would be about forty years old now.

I made a number of these for a gallery exhibition last fall, where they appeared together with some of my more conventional prints. I got a lot of favorable comments and sold a few prints. Since then I've made and sold a few more.

 

[zgeeRF]

I had guessed the reverse: first fixed some areas before drying and then developing the rest but your process is more flexible and seeing both prints I can imagine a great collection! Thanks for the detailed explanation! I hope you get to show and sell more!

 

[Bassism]

I have to say these prints are absolutely fascinating.

As far as seeing things that have nothing to do with the underlying image, in the first print my eyes are constantly drawn to a mime wearing a felt hat in the upper-left-centre. I think it took over a minute before I managed to figure out what else was going on.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Thanks! It feels good when folks tell you that you inspired them! What I like most about these pictures is that every single one is a unique image, unlike any other print. There's no way to print up an edition of X number of prints unless you have a very loose definition of "edition", like "based on the same negative".

Also it's time consuming because of the long complex developing regimen, and they don't all turn out the way I'd hoped. My rejection rate is probably in the 80 to 90 percent range, so it can easily take an hour or more and perhaps ten sheets of paper to come up with one satisfactory print.

If you follow my blog there are some photos of me from my hippie days with shoulder length hair. I just scanned some more old prints from the 60's and 70's which should be apearing over the next week or so. I'm even toying with the idea of growing back my hair. As one lady friend put it "If you still have a thick mop of curly hair at your age then you should flaunt it!"

 

[Chris101]

It's great! I love that deconstructed stuff. 😀

Is it me, or does the ... lamp? ... over the lady's head look like Moe Howard?

 

[raydm6]

Awesome Al! Very nice. What you do with the developer reminds me a bit of Jackson Pollack's technique with paint (well, maybe that's a stretch) but very nice work! Thanks for sharing that.

- Ray

 

[iamzip]

These are very interesting - makes me wish I had a proper darkroom.