# 7690
First, let me apologize for the somewhat poor reproduction of the print above. It was shot through the glass of the frame because I was too lazy to remove it. The original slide was shot in the fall of 1992 on Kodachrome 64 film and printed on 11×14 inch Cibachrome glossy print material in 1993. I made a total of three prints; the first was a bit too dark, the second a bit too light but the third was perfect. The third print became part of a portfolio of fall leaves. The first two prints were not suitable for framing so I decided to use a weaving technique to bring the two prints together. I had seen some very early digital images at a show called “Montage 93”. At this time digital images were not available to the general public and the science was very crude at the time. Still, I liked what I saw in spite of the pixelated look and wanted to reproduce it. I had tried the weaving on one other test print before doing this one to understand the technique better before doing this one.
First, the darker print was cut into 1/4 inch (6.35 mm) strips vertically and numbered on the back side with a Dixon pencil. Then I made 1/4 inch cuts horizontally on the second print but the edges were not cut so the print stayed together. Then the vertical strips (of the darker print) were woven into the the lighter print. I had to wear cotton gloves during the weaving because the print surface is delicate. Finally, the print was matted and framed. This was an exhausting process and one I would never repeat.
But wait, there’s more…
At our sister site is another experiment this week. Everyday, Monday through Friday, we are posting a photo. What is so experimental about that you may ask. It’s the same photo every day!!!
Okay, you can put your socks back on.
2clicksaway 
Interesting.
Thanks, Alessandro.
I understand that this was exhausting… 🙂
I like it!
Yes, it was but I did enjoy doing it.
🙂
I like it too! Terrific idea, and it must be one of the few film prints that seeks to emulate pizelation. Added bonus is that it uses a textile technique! Aren’t computers historically linked to Jacquard looms and their controlling mechanisms?
Thanks, ehpem. I don’t know anything about looms or weaving or any other textile techniques. I did have an instructor that specialized in photographing textile manufacturing in Guatemala but she focused mostly on the people who worked in the factories rather than the process. It did eave an impression on me, though.
That is often called a basket weave. I live in a house with 4 looms, at least I think it is four. Two are behind me as I write, but I don’t know much about weaving. It is something that happens around here, and I get to use the products.
I don’t know much about weaving, either. This must be a very common type of weaving. I see it in a lot of the Native American objects I shoot at the Museum.
It is probably the most common, and ancient type of weaving. There are checkerweave Native baskets on the northwest coast that date to 5 or 6000 years ago.
Kodachrome 64 & Cibachrome – a perfect combination (although I preferred Kodachrome 25)….and those Cibachrome black borders too (weird weren’t they)?….and the tank and the smell…excellent shot by the way!
Can’t say as I miss the smell. I had (and still have actually, a Kodak electric print processing drum which I use for the Ciba. It kept proper temperature through tempered water running through it. It did a beautiful job of processing up to 11″x14″, was easy to use in the dark and was built like a tank.
I like that image but the effort involved sounds prodigious. I tried Cibachrome. So much effort for so little reward, mostly. I have a handful of images from those days but far too many failures. Digital photographers who never tried that game have no idea how hard we worked for a decent image.
Thanks, Andy. I had very good luck with the Ciba process and I liked it quite a lot. It was a fairly easy and forgiving process but the material and chemistry were very expensive. That expense made it suitable for only a select number of photos.
Cool!
Is it???
I think so…
Fortunately I read this post without socks on, so … 🙂 At any rate, I remember printing the oh so expensive and fragile Cibachrome. It was so easy to tear the wet emulsion; however, the prints, if done right, looked absolutely gorgeous. My favorite slide film was Kodachrome 25! Slow and steady wins the race, my friend. Have your tripod ready.
Thanks, Paul. I shot K25 side by side with K64 and it became very difficult to tell the difference. Here in Western NY, constant overcast is the norm and I needed the little bit of extra speed. A small price to pay.