Re: gum "curves"

[Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>]

On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Sandy King wrote:
> For gum, I will defer to the experience of those who have worked  
> with curves, and without curves. If anyone believes curves would  
> not improve the quality of their work, I am inclined to agree with  
> them. Question is, have these folks bothered to actually compare  
> the quality of their own work with that of someone else who uses  
> the curve approach? Some folks are perfectly happy with work that  
> others would consider below par. There was someone on the list a  
> few months ago who went on and on about how curves were not  
> necessary (no names, please), but I have seen this person's work,  
> and as far as I am concerned it barely rises above the level of  
> pure crap. But to each his own.
Wow. Well, it's not hard to see why I  stopped reading this guy's  
posts, too.  This, while not being a direct personal insult,  
certainly is insulting even though it's delivered as an innuendo  
rather than a direct insult.  I know who you're talking about, and I  
rather agree about his prints, but it's like one of the old  
propaganda techniques we learned in school  to suggest that because  
so and so didn't like curves and his work was crap, then anyone who  
hasn't found curves useful... well, draw your own conclusions.    If  
you're saying my work is crap, then come right out and say it, Sandy,  
let's not beat around the bush!

But that's the point I've been making all along, that I don't see any  
superiority of the gum prints I've seen (at least as reproduced  
online) coming out of curves systems, to prints that have been made  
without curves.    If curves were so essential to superior gum  
printing, then surely the superiority would be apparent for all to  
see; there would be a line dividing "curved" prints from everything  
that has come before.   And like I say, haven't yet seen this sea- 
change in quality of gum prints as a result of digital curves.

But yes, I've looked at my prints in comparison to those made by  
others using curves,  and I'm not afraid to compare my gum prints to  
anyone's.  Not everyone (not every photographer anyway) understands   
some phases of the evolution of my vision over the years, or shares  
my aesthetic preferences, but it should be obvious to anyone from my  
demonstration prints that I can easily produce a print that fits the  
idea of "political correctness" in photography when I want to,  even  
if you don't understand some of my exhibition work, which is very  
much out of line, and deliberately so,  with that ideology.   But I'm  
curious; did you actually look at the comparison I posted?

Katharine


> > If people like the curves approach, be my guest. .  just don't  
> > expect me to follow suit,  when there's no evidence that this is a  
> > superior approach in some objective sense that demonstrates its  
> > superiority in superior prints, and so far no evidence from my own  
> > observations that  this approach would improve my own prints in  
> > any way, or make them more consistent or my process more reliable  
> > than they already are.
> >
> > Katharine