U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: slightly OT - dry prints

Re: slightly OT - dry prints

Hi, if you coat the papers you normally use for p.e. gum printing like magnani, fabriano, hahnemuehle etc. , with rabbit glue, you would be astonished about the results with pigment ink in the epson-1270-cartridges. Even Awagami unryu prepared for inkjet printing, the results are astonishing ...
And don't forget transfers from inkjet to a 300 grs aqua-paper.
It is all in the game.

On 29 mei 2007, at 1:38, Catherine Rogers wrote:

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,

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
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
with the paper and ink/chalk/emulsion/whatever is a real treat I

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
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
little response), I read an interesting patent (possibly a Kodak
6387457, which describes a digital dry print - it could be the one.

Can anyone shed some light on dry printing?

Many thanks