Re: slightly OT - dry prints
Hi, Could it be one of the "powder" processes using dichromate solutions as described in following? http://www.photo-helios.org/pages_techniques/color.html Sury was a belgian photographer who left us quite a few beautiful "Sury Powder Prints" Greetings, Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:28 PM 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
|