Re: slightly OT - dry prints
Thanks Katherine - I'll look that article up, I like Carol Armstrong's
writing on photo history very much.
While a number of the sites I googled impled exactly what you have said -
that a dry print is a digital print, Horsfield's print quality - the
texture and surface - is unlike any digital print I have seen. They looked
like they are coated with a fine coloured powder which barely sits on the
paper - and they dont look very digital. They could be an alternative
process. The occassional coloured dot can be seen - but that's about it.
Perhaps this particular quality, or look, might have something to do with
how his files are made - and the paper he uses. None of my digital prints
have ever looked anything like these!
Maybe dry print is yet another name - like giclee...
Has anyone seen the Horsfield show?
once again, thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: slightly OT - dry prints
> Hi Catherine,
> Your question, unanswered, aroused my curiosity . By googling, I
> found an ArtForum article about Horsfield by Carol Armstrong, January
> 2004, which yields this description:
> "...they are so-called dry prints, prints made not in the blind, wet
> space of the darkroom but first by digital scanning and then by the
> colored inks of the ink-jet printer, which when combined with matte
> paper have greater painterly potential than emulsified color."
> In other words, a dry print is an inkjet print. Hope that's helpful,
> On May 28, 2007, at 5:41 AM, Catherine Rogers wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > While we are discussing unusual (and secret) print methods (Fresson) I
> > thought I would ask if anyone knows about, or has had experience
> > with a
> > printing method called 'dry print'.
> > The Craigie Horsfield show is about to finish here in Sydney,
> > Australia, and
> > I noted the very particular almost chalky quality of many of the
> > prints
> > which were described as being a 'dry print'. They have a soft,
> > dusty look,
> > at the same time, an intense colour, when colour was used. But no real
> > blacks in the monochrome images IMO. Sort of similar to my memory of a
> > Fresson print which I saw once, many, many, moons ago. The museum
> > had many
> > signs up warning of the delicacy of the prints which were not
> > covered with
> > glass - a nice touch I thought. Being able to engage one's eyes
> > directly
> > with the paper and ink/chalk/emulsion/whatever is a real treat I
> > think.
> > While at the Museum of Contemporary Art I picked up an Art in
> > America with
> > review of the Craigie Horsfield show. A good read. However, all the
> > the
> > prints used as illustrations in the article were described as
> > digital prints
> > rather than as dry prints. I've googled dry print and among a lot
> > of other
> > stuff (this same question was asked on a digital print forum - but
> > with
> > little response), I read an interesting patent (possibly a Kodak
> > patent)
> > 6387457, which describes a digital dry print - it could be the one.
> > Can anyone shed some light on dry printing?
> > Many thanks
> > Catherine