thanks, man. yeah, dig: that texture is due to actual artifacts of film and time. from negative to print. imagine that!!
so funny when you consider that now we add all those types of artifacts into the mix using software (im very big on this, on an alternative to the Far Too Perfect Digital Modern Image) but back then, an important component of a visual arts/photo education meant buying spot-tone and learning how to use the different shades, dilute them further when needed, and with a tiny brush, painstakingly apply it onto photos to retouch all those cursed dust flecks, and conceal any such glitches from the final print.
i suddenly recall one of the tricks we learned in basic photo, in the darkroom. when you found a particularly nasty scratch on your negative, one that showed up in the print, you’d take a finger and wipe it across your forehead or nose, which would pick up oil which you’d then wipe across the negative, intersecting the scratch. the oil from your skin would fill in the groove enough to greatly minimize the effect, once light was passed through the neg and onto your paper.
the art and science of photography has changed a bit since the days of this photo—taken when i was a photo major at community college, developed by hand in a light-tight room, fixed, washed, and dried in that same dim yellow light. these days, the practice of photography has almost become disembodied from such episodes and origins. today it lives mostly in the theory, casual critique, and digital editing of the image, afterward.
the capture itself—the hunt that takes an eye and eager hand into a stark, silent, raving land of light and shadow to return with proof of the adventure—has become so assured, so automated, so easy; so removed from what it once was. gone is so much of the artistry, the ever-present math, the tubs of chemicals, black curtains, and crucially timed actions.
—HOW I MISS THE CHEMISTRY ROBOT NIGHT-OPS SIDE OF YOU, DARLIIIIIIIIINGGGGGG