That was my intent all along I would never bring anything to the table here, unkless I wanted to share.
But it was also a subdued cry for help, where to best put pdf-files for maximum effect, AFAIK such files will not UL automagically here....
You have to go to advanced reply and attach with the paperclip. I think that'll do the trick.
Thank you mate! One
learns something every day by sharing as much as possible on the Net!n Jupp there it is pdf-file limit is 927,7 MB, I think that will be more than enough.
Firing up scanner, this will be a relief in other threads as well!
This will not happen here. The data will not be forthcoming, since I discovered in another thread that the mere mention of a scanner, and other digital means of diplaying one's work here fired off threats of being dispelled to "dpug" whatever that is, and postings being censored/deleted.
Since I cannot do this with anything else than a scanner, it will not happen. There. SCANNER. Delete this.
Referring to the OP, it appears that it might be a December 1969 "Amateur Scientist" column in Sci. Am. - "Calcium acrylate monomer ...add two drops of triethanolamine and two drops of methylene blue etc".
If I can find this item in my collection (boxes upon boxes of mags hiding in the garage), I will make it available.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
analog what is that?, don't be silly. Scanning documents is common practice and posting that is completely fine.
It's just when you start talking about scanning film that people freak out. It's silly, it's pedantic, it's the way APUG is. We gotta live with it I guess. You learn quickly how much you can get away with, but merely mentioning it in a broader context won't get you in any trouble usually.
It sounds like you're frustrated about the scanning issue, but to not share something related to analog photography because it's been scanned is completely counter productive to the original aims of APUG. Trust me, no one will raise a stink.
Or you could just tell everyone you faxed it to yourself...
LOL if we're not allowed to scan docs and post them then I guess we're not allowed to access APUG with our computers too I mean, last time I checked, my monitor was a digital device. Maybe I should read this on a cathode ray tube.
Just post the doc or better yet upload it somewhere and post a link to it.
APUG is a lot more moderate and open than many realize. Please don't be put off by people's reluctance to discuss scanners themselves and whatnot. This is actually a friendly place. It;s just that some people amuse themselves by picking certain tired battles over and over. And over. No worries.
WOW - When did that change? When Hybridphoto.com flopped?
Originally Posted by keithwms
For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!
Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
Well, there sometimes is a difference between the perceived tone and the actual "rules" of the site. Yes, we don't have open "What scanner should I buy" threads, and "D vs. A" threads are frowned upon, but... that's about it. Items are routinely scanned into the threads and galleries. And I think anyone discussing and advocating analogue materials and processes will find APUG quite welcoming.
Every now and then, somebody feels the need to push someone else's buttons in the most obvious way, and we rehash the same thing. Truth is, the vast majority understand very well why we're here. Because we enjoy analogue photography.
As I read this, I recall decades back producing printed circuit boards using a photo-sensitive resist (from Kodak, in fact) and I assume photo polymerization was the basis of that. It wasn't particularly analog, lithograph films and line art were used as image masters. The film was contact printed with UV light on a substrate coated with the photo-resist. The substrate was then washed in solvent, leaving the pattern on the substrate, after which acids were used to etch the piece. Photo resists are still in use, especially in the semiconductor industry (where I believe they use Xrays as the shorter wavelengths allow higher resolution).
The idea of something homegrown sounds interesting, especially if there was a way to somehow introduce a porosity proportional to exposure that could produce a more analog result.