{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3403",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 3403,
    "subject": "sepia and new tricks with old timelines",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "2002-08-11T05:11:56+00:00",
    "last": "2002-08-19T18:44:32+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0208-1559@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi",
        "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com"
      },
      "date": "2002-08-11T05:11:56+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) sepia and new tricks with old timelines",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Adam Stephanides quoted me and wrote:\nIs 1920 a good benchmark for natural sepia, for the clothing, for the\nLombard reference?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "All Miss Hadow says is that the girl's face reminds her of Carole Lombard,\nnot the clothes or hairstyle; so the Lombard reference doesn't help to date\nthe photo."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "True; it mainly dates Miss Hadow, I guess.\n\nMeanwhile, I've been fixing my sense of sepia.  Sepia is not an artifact of\naging (i.e., discoloration), it is only a style, one of two tones (sepia\nand selenium) that actually =enhance= the stability of the print.  I\nmistakenly thought it was both, that is, that there was \"natural\" sepia\n(due to aging) and artificial sepia (which gave things a certain look as\nwell as a hint of antiquity).\n\nThat the photos are \"faded\" is the age indicator (as well as the fashion of\nthe clothing worn by the subjects . . . uh, those who are wearing\nclothing).  That they are sepia points more toward the style question,\nwhich still remains: when was \"sepia vogue,\" that is, at what point in the\n20th century did sepia tone prints drop out of fashion?\n\nI was amazed to learn that the first Poloroid cameras in 1947 produced\nsepia prints!  They developed b&w in 1950, but there was a crisis because\nthe photos faded rapidly and they had to scramble to come up with a new\nformula.\n\nNext up: new tricks with the timeline.  It would be really neat to have a\nsequence of each section of the book with each subsection \"date stamped.\"\nSo then one could see at a glance as Weer jumps from time to time.\n\nI mention this because in trying to look up the announcement of the three\nvisitors (actually the two visitors while Bill Baton is with Weer), I saw\nagain as if anew the wonderful nested quality of it: the tale of Tilly told\nby Smart; the mention of how Weer told the tale to Margaret (and then in\nhis dream Charlie the dog boy came between Weer and Margaret); then mention\nof how he started to tell the tale to Bill Baton; and then the arrival of\nCharlie himself . . . summoned by the thought, or so it seems! . . . and\nCharlie kind of comes between Weer and Bill Baton in the office like he\ncame between Weer and Margaret in the dream.\n\nAlden Dennis Weer\n2274: frametale\n1974: fat Weer goes to Dr. Van Ness\n1920: Weer's birthday party, etc.\n2274: Hannah and frametale\n1953: thin Weer at Dr. Van Ness's office\n1974: president Weer at Dr. Van Ness's office\n1920: birthday party\n2274: elm branches in the fire\n1953: Dr. V\n2274: exercise regimen; new races\n1921: Christmas at grandfather's house\n1920: Hannah tales\n2274: frametale\n1953: mirror test\n\nSomething like that, for starters.\n\n=mantis="
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0208-1576@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes",
        "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com"
      },
      "date": "2002-08-19T18:44:32+00:00",
      "subject": "RE: (urth) sepia and new tricks with old timelines",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0208-1559@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "That they are sepia points more toward the style question,\nwhich still remains: when was \"sepia vogue,\" that is, at what \npoint in the 20th century did sepia tone prints drop out of\nfashion?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "While I don't have an answer to hand, one data point: in the\n1939 film THE WIZARD OF OZ, sepia-tone (rather than standard\nB/W) was used in the Kansas segments to give them a \"dated\" or \nantiquated feel, giving me the impression that sepia must have\nbeen out of vogue for some time at that point -- by Hollywood\nstandards, that is, so at least a year or two."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}