Re: TYPO ...Re: 3 questions (one of them dumb)

[DimitriColleen Deneux <DimitriColleen.Deneux@tele2.fr>]

Hello Peter,

How funny, we met at the lensculture party and I had no idea that you were 
part of this list!
I saw your photos of the party at Jim and Millie's afterwards and they were 
fantastic!
I completely agree with you about the MacDermott prints, I commented 
afterwards that I have seen much better from this list.

Colleen Leonard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Marshall" <petermarshall@cix.co.uk>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: TYPO ...Re: 3 questions (one of them dumb)


> I wrote a little piece somewhere a couple of years ago after going round 
> one of the big shows - probably Paris Photo - about all the various 
> different ways dealers were trying to hide the fact that some prints on 
> sale were inkjet prints.  Of course many are still at it, though I did see 
> the "i" word used a little more this year. And many of the best 
> contemporary prints on show were inkjet, particularly colour but also some 
> fine b/w prints.
>
> There were also some fine historical examples of alt-process prints on 
> show this year, and of course the MEP had the impressive MacDermott & 
> MacGough show, though I have to say I was not impressed by the quality of 
> their gum prints or cyanotypes - I think most people here could have made 
> better prints for them!
>
> I'll possibly get round to writing more about this later - if so I'll try 
> and remember to post here. At the moment I'm still trying to catch up 
> after a rather busy time in Paris
>
> Peter Marshall    -    Photographer, Writer: NUJ
> petermarshall@cix.co.uk 
> _________________________________________________________________
> > Re:PHOTO                     http://re-photo.co.uk
> My London Diary                  http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
>
>
> Judy Seigel wrote:
> > oops -- typo... that's,
> >
> > not "glicee," but "GICLEE" was (also if not primarily) used to obscure 
> > the fact ...
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > J.