Bruce, I first picked up a copy at the Lloyd Center Barnes & Noble. I would think all B&N would carry it. But I loved it so much I subscribed! It is expensive, but worth it...
Originally Posted by BruceN
Extending on Tomís reply.
Iíve revisited the article, and can still find little wrong with it. Peter has expounded his theory, and the practice that he has adopted to overcome his perceived problems. Having identified a problem, he has produced a product that he believes overcomes it. Note, however that there isnít a single reference in the offending article to help the reader purchase his products. I do agree that Ailsa could have made reference to Peterís commercial connections to maintain editorial balance, but, as Peter has avoided such reference, maybe she thought that she need not. As a further point we should know that every author is paid for their work, and are therefore under pressure to produce something different, controversial even, if they are to stand a chance of being asked to produce further work for publication. An article that simply pointed us at previously accepted methods or tomes of work would stand little chance of being published, and rightly so.
I do not disagree with your view' it is entirely valid. However, IMHO although no direct attempt was made to sell his products specifically, by virtue of being the sole UK distributer of products fitting the exact description he states are effectively essential, the line is crossed. Anyone concerned by the isssues he mentions, who them looks for UK supply of, say, alkaline fixer, would end up at his online shop. Again, were he to provide evidence to support his claims, one would only be able to conclude that it is a good job he is both able to educate us and provide problem solving products.
I do wish him every success and believe it likely that his products are indeed very good and his intentions the same. As for your last point on originality, it is of course true. However were he to have shown how, say, acid fixing for 8 minutes instead of 3 had visibly degraded a negative (perhaps with two side by side identically exposed prints) that would have been very original (i've never seen it done) and would have made experienced darkroom workers think long and hard about the issues he raises.
I don't suppose that anyone has noticed, but I generally suggest neutral fixer as being the all-round optimum - and it happens to be obtainable the world over as it is widely used by photo labs. Did Peter's article consider it as an option? If it didn't then I'd smell a rat.
I'm still in shock over page 75 of the Autumn 2004 issue (no 38). There's a picture of a pedestrian crossing a single traffic lane in the rain, in London. There are no visible vehicles in the traffic lane that she has just crossed. Apart from the unusually inclement weather for the location* the picture looks rather nondescript. But only at first: the full horror unfolds as you look more closely and read the accompanying text.
She has jaywalked!
'... The lights were set to give vehicles the right of way, which meant that pedestrians had to stand in the rain and wait their turn. Most did this but one woman was too impatient and launched herself through a gap in the traffic, disregarding a sign which should have controlled her action. I raised my camera and caught her just as she arrived on my side of the road, fortunately unscathed.'
Now, although the picture does not provide the same dramatic evidence of the disgusting civil disobedience described in the text, I can only trust that the account is accurate. My question is this: faced with someone who is so blatantly defiant of the laws of a democratic society, so brazenly anarchic, why did he choose to take a picture of her instead of making a citizen's arrest?
What sort of an image does this give to potential visitors to the city? That anarchists and naughty people are free to wander the streets? Is anyone safe?
I can assure tourists that if anyone ever dared to try to jaywalk here in New York a dozen vigilant citizens would have the evil-doer disarmed and pinned to the sidewalk in less time than it takes a taxi driver to finish his phone conversation.
I remain etc.
Outraged of Hell's Kitchen (Miss)
*For those of you who have never been there, London is almost always sunny and warm, whatever the season.
In Hawaii, pedestrians always have the right of way, even when jaywalking. In fact, there is talk about making the fines higher for drivers not yielding.
Originally Posted by Helen B
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In Greece cars always have the right of way even when crossing a red light. Pedestrians that run over cars get the life sentence.
Originally Posted by roteague
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
Yes, I saw that and the bit that amazed me is
HA!.. If true, they must have been tourists - we do not DO "waiting for the lights to change" in London...
pedestrians had to stand in the rain and wait their turn. Most did this..
So far, the powers that be have not latched on to the tax-raising possibilities of fining people for walking across the road - only a matter of time of course now the His Ponceness the Major has got rid of all the jump-on, jump-off Routemaster buses and replaced them with absurd monstrosities, 50 feet long that bend in the middle (in a city that still has it's original Medieval street plan - genius!)...