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 and cheers (another) Catherine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> 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, > Katharine > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|