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

Re: slightly OT - dry prints


Could it be one of the "powder" processes using dichromate solutions as
described in following?


Sury was a belgian photographer who left us quite a few beautiful "Sury
Powder Prints"

----- 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,

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,
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
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
signs up warning of the delicacy of the prints which were not  covered
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
review of the Craigie Horsfield show. A good read. However, all the  the
prints used as illustrations in the article were described as  digital
rather than as dry prints. I've googled dry print and among a lot  of
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