From: Richard Sullivan FRPS (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 06/26/01-02:28:55 PM Z
>Thanks, Dick. You have articulated succinctly some concepts that have been
>floating around my head for some time. I worked in a photo lab for a while,
>making c-prints and Cibachromes. The lab went digital eventually and so did
>I, except in my personal work. Oh, I tried it. I was pretty good at
>Photoshop and color correction. I put a print in a show I thought looked
>splendid. I found out it looked splendid *for what it was*. Next to all
>those beautiful traditional silver prints that were surrounding mine, the
>differences were obvious.
>-christine
>
>P.S. if you want to see the print in the aforementioned show, go to:
>http://gcc.bradley.edu/exhibit/2000/awardsframe.htm
>and click on "Ruins of the Rectory".
Christine, on-line the print looks fine. In my rambling thought piece the
one area I stayed away from intentionally was esthetics. The issue I am
struggling with is "authenticity" and its relationship to what I am
defining as "technological depth." John Paul Caponigro recently showed me
some color work he had done on one of the hot new Epson printers and they
were stunning. The were very "minimalist" in content and normally I am not
turned on by color prints but these were zingers. I have no doubt that now
or in the future digital prints will be "better" than hand made ones in the
same way that a machine made sweater will be "better" than one knitted by a
Shetland Islander in a stone cottage during a Scottish winter. I contend
the difference is that the one made by the Shetlander is more "authentic"
though perhaps not as "perfect."
We could take my thesis to the level of reducto ad absurdum and contend
that one needs to make their own camera, films, paper, lenses and the whole
shebang in order to be truly authentic, but of course few of us will
attempt to become this "pure." All obsessions have their fanatics.
My friend Meridel Rubenstein's current work consists of large 4 foot by 6
foot (approx) Iris prints made on a very heavy paper pre-coated with gum
and mica. She had a ton of problems getting the paper through the printer
and I believe, if I heard right, she ruined several print heads in the
process. They are stunning. They also do not look like big ink jet prints.
By the mica and gum coating, the handwork on the prints, Meridel has done
an end-around and inserted herself at the end of the technology chain and
thus in a sense has re-authenticated her work. These are not a quarter in
the machine in the mall prints.
Image making vs print making. When I studied photography at UCLA back in
the 70's everyone printed on Agfa paper, no cropping (grind out your
negative holder), selenium toned, glossy paper (God forbid, a matt paper!)
The prints were made like Pringles, (Communism in a potato chip can?) each
one in terms of print characteristics were the same. The emphasis was on
the image, print quality was purely tonal and there were strict rules on
that too.
One of the great aspects of the hand coated processes is that the print
maker, and that is what we are, has an almost infinite number of variables
to work with. You can now make a Ziatype, a process that allows for a large
number of printing options and different print characteristic due to the
POP aspect of the development. You can make a straight palladium print, you
can make a pt/pd mix. You have a choice of a number of developers. Or you
can go with the Extravagatype and you have a choice of options there. With
all of the hand coated processes you have a choice of paper surfaces -- and
don't we know how paper changes the print characteristics? -- it affects
not only of the surface, but the overall look and feel of the print.
To some this looks like Anarchy with a capital "A." To others, it is
heaven. Maybe hand coating in reality it is only part of the game. One
could do a better job by using a motor scooter to run the bases in a
baseball game, but it somehow it would not be the same game.
Cheers.
--Dick Sullivan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST