U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

Well, since I am the one who 'let this cat out of the can of worms,' (as my
grandmother would say), I wonder if we have any list members who are in NYC
and might be able to visit Greenberg and give us their impressions of the
image(s) in the show?  Judy???

As an aside: last year I was on the island of Guam.  I visited the National
Parks Service 'War in The Pacific' Museum, and there was a life size photo
of Steichen surrounded by native Chamorro children, as he took pictures of

I'm not a particular fan (though quite admire 'The Flatiron Building')  but
he certainly lived in interesting times.

Best to all,


On 3/10/09 5:29 PM, "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> wrote:

> Thanks phritz, this info of course is consistent with the knowledge I
> have (and have shared here) on the subject, but interesting to see it
> echoed.  I was aware that the auction catalog identified the print as
> gum over platinum, per the Metropolitan's analysis,  but I hadn't
> seen all the added material, that's pretty interesting.  Thanks,
> kt
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:54 PM, phritz phantom wrote:
>> just stumbled upon this on apug. a used called "reellis67 <http://
>> www.apug.org/forums/members/reellis67/>" posted the text on "pond -
>> moonlight" from the auction catalog.
>> it mostly has info that has been mentioned here before, but maybe
>> it's an interesting read for someone...and since emails aren't paid
>> for by size:
>> excerpt from the catalogue notes:
>> ..Edward Steichenıs ŒThe Pond‹Moonlightı ranks among the
>> photographerıs greatest achievements in Pictorial photography. An
>> aesthetic and technical tour-de-force, the print of ŒThe Pond‹
>> Moonlightı offered here shows Steichen operating at the very peak
>> of his early powers. The painterly qualities of this masterpiece,
>> combined with its photographic realism, its large scale, and its
>> supreme technical virtuosity, place it alongside Steichenıs
>> magnificent study of the Flatiron Building as the photographerıs
>> most ambitious artistic statement; together, they are the
>> culmination of the movement known as Pictorialism. Operatic in
>> their intention and in their effect, the ŒPondı and ŒFlatironı
>> series are the young Edward Steichenıs bravura confirmation of the
>> validity of the photographic medium. As one critic wrote in The
>> Photogram of 1905, there was an answer to Œthat addled question in
>> the short catechism of the camera: ³Is photography an art?² with
>> all its bungling answers in extenso. ³Let the answer be: Yes: it is
>> Steichen.²ı
>> Like the series of Steichenıs ŒFlatiron Buildingı now in The
>> Metropolitan Museum of Art, only three examples of ŒThe Pond‹
>> Moonlightı are known, and as in the ŒFlatironı series, each in this
>> trio is different in tone, in atmosphere, and in subtle detail. In
>> addition to the present photograph, there is the print of ŒThe
>> Pondı that Stieglitz gave the Metropolitan in 1933; and the print
>> that Steichen himself gave to The Museum of Modern Art in 1967.
>> Although created from the same negative, the three prints are the
>> results of different photographic processes and are a testament to
>> Steichenıs artistic goals and to his finely honed abilities as a
>> printer. Multiple-process printing, on this large scale, was
>> practiced by no one as it was practiced by Steichen.
>> The negative for ŒThe Pond‹Moonlightı was made in the wetlands
>> around Marmaroneck, New York, on Long Island Sound, near the home
>> of Charles H. Caffin (1854 ­ 1918), the English-born art critic who
>> had championed Steichenıs work in his volume Photography as a Fine
>> Art (see Lot 5). After the birth of their first daughter in July of
>> 1904, the Steichens sought refuge from the stifling heat of their
>> top-floor Manhattan apartment, gratefully accepting an invitation
>> to spend August with Caffin and his wife Caroline. The August visit
>> stretched into September when Steichen suffered a bout of typhoid
>> and was hospitalized for three weeks. A gelatin silver print of a
>> closely-related image, entitled ŒAutumn,ı now in the J. Paul Getty
>> Museum, is inscribed ŒAutumn, Marmaroneck, N. Y., 1904,ı by Alfred
>> Stieglitz on the reverse, a likely indication that the present
>> photograph was made in September, during the latter part of the
>> Steichensı stay (The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal, Volume 16, 1988,
>> fig. 93).
>> The woods at dusk, or in moonlight, was one of Steichenıs favorite
>> subjects, one to which he returned time and again in the years
>> before the first World War, in paintings as well as photographs.
>> Although few of his paintings survive‹he destroyed most of them in
>> his notorious bonfire in Voulangis after the war‹their titles echo
>> his obsession with the effects of glimmering light in nocturnal
>> settings: ŒThe Road to the Lake‹Moonlight,ı ŒThe Moonlight Promenade
>> ‹The Sea,ı ŒBalcony, Nocturne, Lake George,ı and ŒMoonlit
>> Landscape,ı among others. A rare surviving painting from that
>> period, now in the Whitney Museum of Art, shows parallel rows of
>> trees in an unidentified glen, the moon rising to the top of the
>> composition, its light reflected in the water in the foreground
>> (reproduced in Dennis Longwell, Steichen: The Master Prints, New
>> York, 1978, p. 17). ŒThe romantic and mysterious quality of
>> moonlight, the lyric aspect of nature made the strongest appeal to
>> meı Steichen wrote in his autobiography. ŒMost of the paintings‹
>> watercolors‹that I did in my early years were of moonlight
>> subjects. . . the real magician was light itself‹mysterious and
>> ever-changing light with its accompanying shadows rich and full of
>> mysteryı (A Life in Photography, unpaginated, Chapter 1).
>> The influences of not only individual painters but also whole
>> artistic movements on this period of Steichenıs work have been
>> variously discussed in the literature: Dennis Longwell, in his
>> Steichen: The Master Prints, 1914-1985, The Symbolist Period (op.
>> cit.) and Lucy Bowditch, in ŒSteichen and Maeterlinck: The
>> Symbolist Connectionı (History of Photography, Volume 17, Number 4,
>> Winter 1999), for instance, are among many who tie Steichen to the
>> international Symbolist movement. Christian Peterson, in ŒThe
>> Photograph Beautiful: 1895 ­ 1915ı (History of Photography, Volume
>> 16, Number 3, Autumn 1992), states the case for the Arts & Crafts
>> movement, with its attendant influences of Whistler, Arthur Wesley
>> Dow, and Japonisme. And a number of scholars refer to Steichenıs
>> relationship with Scandinavian painters such as Fritz Thaulow,
>> especially Melinda Boyd Parsons, in her article Œ²Moonlight on
>> Darkening Ways²: Concepts of Nature and the Artist in Edward and
>> Lilian Steichenıs Socialismı (American Art, Volume 11, Number 1,
>> Spring 1997). That a host of authors have found sources for
>> Steichenıs early work in this variety of international styles
>> testifies to Steichenıs talents as a visual magpie, seizing and
>> synthesizing from the cultural plethora around him, not only in his
>> Pictorialist phase, but throughout his career. And, as always with
>> Steichen, the total, as in ŒThe Pond‹Moonlight,ı was equal to far
>> more than the sum of the parts.
>> Steichen admitted that, following in the traditions of the day, he
>> initially saw his woodland photographs as preliminary studies for
>> moonlight paintings. ŒI made realistic notes of the actual night
>> colors on the spot,ı he wrote about one Milwaukee twilight
>> photography session, Œdescribing the colors I saw in terms of a
>> mixture of pigments to be used in the paintingı (A Life in
>> Photography, unpaginated, Chapter 1). If a Steichen letter from
>> 1903 is any indication, the photographer vividly recorded in his
>> mind the colors of a setting, even if planning a photograph: ŒWe
>> had a moon night before last‹the like of which I had never seen
>> before‹the whole landscape was still bathed in a warm twilight glow‹
>> the color was simply marvelous in its dark bright‹and into this
>> rose a large disc of brilliant golden orange in a warm purplish sky‹
>> Gold. . . ı (quoted in Longwell, op. cit., p. 94). The ability of
>> oil on canvas to capture the colors of a night setting, as well as
>> its shadowy forms, was for Steichen one of paintingıs most valuable
>> aspects. Steichen was from an early date preoccupied with color in
>> photography, and he was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon,
>> in 1907, when the Lumière brothers devised the first practical
>> photographic color process, the autochrome. Indeed, as aficionados
>> of Camera Work know, so committed was Steichen to capturing the
>> subtle colorations of certain moonlit scenes that he resorted to
>> personally hand-tinting every copy of two photogravure plates
>> issued in Camera Work: the ŒRoad into the Valley‹Moonriseı in the
>> Steichen Supplement of 1906, and ŒPastoral‹Moonlightı in Camera
>> Work Number 19, from 1907.
>> It was the malleable gum-bichromate process, and his consummate
>> mastery of it, that allowed Steichen to realize to the fullest his
>> vision of the moonlit landscape. He was conversant in the basics of
>> gum-bichromate before he left for Paris in 1900--ŒI had read an
>> article by Robert Demachy, a famous French photographer, about a
>> process that he used extensively and referred to as a gum-
>> bichromate process,ı he wrote in his autobiography (A Life in
>> Photography, unpaginated, Chapter 1)‹and he had experimented with
>> gum in his Milwaukee images. His exposure to the European masters
>> of the process, however, as well as the photographs he saw in the
>> European salons, broadened his outlook and showed him the
>> possibilities of what could be achieved in terms of multiple
>> printing on a large scale.
>> His best introduction to the expressive uses of gum-bichromate
>> would have been Robert Demachy (1859 ­ 1936), the French gentleman
>> photographer who was married to a relative of Franklin Delano
>> Roosevelt and was a fluent English speaker and writer. Demachy
>> practiced the gum-bichromate process almost exclusively from the
>> 1890s until 1906, when he took up the Rawlins oil process. His
>> writings on gum-bichromate, in both French and English, were
>> authoritative, and he befriended Steichen during the young
>> photographerıs first sojourn in Paris. The photographer who brought
>> both scale and multiple colors to the process was Heinrich Kühn
>> (1866 ­ 1944) (see Lots 38 ­ 40), the leader of the Viennese
>> secession and like Demachy, a contributor to Camera Work. Steichen
>> met him in Munich in 1901, and could not have failed to have been
>> impressed with the vivid colors achieved by Kühn through multiple,
>> layered printings from different negatives. The works of these and
>> other European practitioners of gum-bichromate, alone or combined
>> with other processes, were seen and studied by Steichen at the
>> salons on the Continent and in London.
>> In France, Steichen began working in gum-bichromate and combination
>> processes with a vengeance. Always ready to take up a challenge, he
>> rose to the processıs technical demands and used its painterly
>> qualities to prove that certain types of photographs could be
>> worked over and multiply-printed until they were indistinguishable
>> from etchings or other traditional fine prints. His duping of the
>> jury of the 1902 Champs de Mars salon is told over and over again
>> in the Steichen narrative: how he submitted, and had accepted, ten
>> gum-bichromate prints to the graphic arts category, only to have
>> them rejected once the committee discovered they were photographs.
>> This early grand-standing aside, he worked very seriously, and with
>> great power, in the combination processes, producing a series of
>> Pictorial masterworks, of which the present image is one.
>> The print offered here is a multiple gum-bichromate print over
>> platinum, and its depth and color come from skillful layers of
>> manipulated, sequential printing, in different tones, from one
>> negative. The initial Œbaseı of the image would have been a
>> platinum print, over which was printed one or more Œlayersı of gum-
>> bichromate. Each of these subsequent layers could not only be a
>> different tone, but could also be altered on its surface with a
>> brush or sponge during development, allowing for manual control of
>> the shapes and shadows. In large format especially, the technique
>> was elaborate, tricky, and laborious. Although Steichen rarely
>> discussed his printing in detail, there is an extant, undated
>> letter he sent to Stieglitz regarding his large, multiple-process
>> prints, which reads in part:
>> Œ. . . [the prints] represent two months hard work to say nothing
>> of the expense which my bills testify to. Big plates mean more
>> failures and cost like h__l. I wish you could see the new things‹
>> They will be hard to hang‹One in particular . . . ŒThe Big
>> Cloudı . . . itıs a whopper‹and will compel attention‹although Iım
>> afraid they may refuse to hang it‹ d__m if they do. Another one
>> Moonrise in three printings: first printing, grey black plat[itnum]‹
>> 2nd, plain blue print (secret), 3rd, greenish gum. It is so very
>> dark I must take the glass off because it acts too much like a
>> mirror. I hope they will handle it carefully . . .ı (quoted in
>> Longwell, op. cit., p. 17).
>> As these large multiple-process prints were each created by a
>> process not dissimilar from the creation of fine cuisine, with
>> special touches known only to the chef, it is difficult to single
>> out the ingredients of Steichenıs prints: thus it is hard to know
>> if the description above applies perfectly to one of the three
>> extant ŒPondı images, or to another print of the image now lost.
>> The print offered here has been analyzed recently by the
>> conservation department at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, and it
>> is described by them as a multiple gum-bichromate print over
>> platinum. The print given to the Metropolitan by Stieglitz, also
>> analyzed recently by their conservation department, appears to be a
>> platinum print with applied Prussian blue and calcium-based white
>> pigment, likely hand-applied. The third print, in the collection of
>> The Museum of Modern Art, is catalogued as a platinum and ferro-
>> prussiate print. Each is different, and each is striking in its own
>> way. As the photographer Joan Harrison, herself an accomplished
>> printer in alternative photographic processes, has succinctly
>> stated, ŒGum-Bichromate is the most individual of all photographic
>> printing processes both in method and result. The hand of the
>> artist is evident in every print and the medium is unique in that
>> its malleability allows for the development of a personal colour
>> palette suited to nearly any taste or sensibilityı (ŒColour in the
>> Gum-Bichromate Process,ı in History of Photography, Volume 17,
>> Number 4, Winter 1993, p. 375).
>> Steichenıs large-format multiple process prints presented him with
>> what must have been the most complex and challenging darkroom
>> experiences he had known in his career to that point, and probably
>> thereafter. But these multiple-process prints were difficult,
>> costly, and time-consuming, and these limitations precluded their
>> production in any quantity. That, coupled with the deterioration or
>> loss of most of the photographerıs early Pictorial negatives during
>> the first World War, make original Steichen multiple-process prints
>> among the rarest works in his entire oeuvre.
>> The print of ŒThe Pond‹Moonlightı offered here was purchased from
>> Alfred Stieglitz, presumably acting as Steichenıs agent, by John
>> Aspinwall, in 1906. Aspinwall, a friend and supporter of Stieglitz
>> and an amateur photographer himself, served as president of the
>> Camera Club of New York in the early years of the last century. The
>> date on Aspinwallıs bill of sale, 3 April 1906, may indicate that
>> the print he purchased was the actual print of the image included
>> in a major retrospective of Steichenıs work at the Photo-Secession
>> Galleries from the 9th to the 24th of March 1906. The original bill
>> of sale to Aspinwall, in Stieglitzıs hand, which at one time
>> accompanied the print, is now lost. The print was also at one time
>> accompanied by a copy of a letter from Steichen to Mrs. John
>> Aspinwall Wagner, a descendant of the original owner, stating that
>> the relatively high price of $75.00, paid in 1906, indicated that
>> Steichen and Stieglitz thought the print was an especially fine
>> one. ...
>> Diana Bloomfield schrieb:
>>> I just had a chance to see this image, and I can believe he might
>>> have gotten this with just those 2 layers-- pt/pd and cyanotype.
>>> Of course, it would be nice to see it in real life.  As mentioned,
>>> we don't really know how much this reproduction has been "punched
>>> up" by the magazine editors.
>>> I've done a lot of pt/pd and cyanotype, though with pinhole
>>> negatives only, and while I've never achieved this deep orange-y
>>> flesh tone, I have been consistently surprised by how the flesh
>>> tones in portraits do seem to subtly change color and stand out
>>> more, even when the cyan layer, at first glance, doesn't look like
>>> it's had any effect at all on the flesh tones.  Of course, the
>>> cyanotype, done after the pt/pd layer, can be controlled somewhat
>>> via exposure and emulsion, and the cyan color will obviously tend
>>> to adhere more to the thinner parts of the negative (more
>>> noticeable, of course, with a pinhole negative than a regular lens-
>>> based negative).
>>> But I think it was Mark who mentioned Sam Wang's cyanotype over pt/
>>> pd yesterday, and I remember seeing one of Sam's portraits done
>>> like that, and thinking that he must have also used gum-- it was
>>> incredible-- and really seemed like it had so many more colors in
>>> it than just the pt/pd and cyanotype-- very rich--   but I
>>> remember asking him about it, and he'd used only the pt/pd and
>>> cyanotype.
>>> Also, I can imagine that different papers available to Steichen
>>> (from what we have now) might also make a difference.  And what
>>> about the chemicals themselves.  Are they exactly the same as what
>>> we now use?
>>> But who knows.  Maybe he did add gum, or some hand-tinting.  I'd
>>> love to see the real thing.  I'm guessing the real image isn't
>>> quite as rich and dark as this reproduction, but that's just a guess.
>>> On Mar 10, 2009, at 10:16 AM, phritz phantom wrote:
>>>> all of that sounds really interesting, thanks for the details,
>>>> christina.
>>>> is there some more info to be found on that platinum/palladium
>>>> and ferroprussiate printing technique?
>>>> i really have a hard time understanding how steichen got these
>>>> kind of colours (even when the colours are a little off in the
>>>> online pic) with just two layers. i'd expect the pd/pt to be a
>>>> brownish colour and the cyano blue.
>>>> they only way i can imagine getting these kind of colours is
>>>> through multple layers, each one individually toned. maybe a
>>>> blackish-brown one, a dark blue one and a third cyano somehow
>>>> toned to an orange.
>>>> and did he take this pic before the invention of colour process
>>>> films? and with a single neg or with colour separations?
>>>> phritz
>>>> Christina Z. Anderson schrieb:
>>>>> aaaaHA.  Infinitely clearer to me as well and I thank you for
>>>>> your very clear and pointed explanation!
>>>>> When I saw the image online I couldn't figure out the connection
>>>>> between the pond image as well and NOW I understand.
>>>>> As an aside, having done lots of pd/cyano, I am very surprised
>>>>> that he was able to derive that flesh color from that process.
>>>>> I would not be at all surprised that there is a gum layer
>>>>> lurking there as well.  Unless pt/pd oranges over time and/or
>>>>> the paper has oranged and/or the scan is WAY more color
>>>>> saturated as Tom Hawkins I think said. But read further and I'll
>>>>> tell you why I wonder if this is not the case.
>>>>> Back to the Pond image.  Of three articles I have on it the
>>>>> ArtNews says as I have said it is a hand-colored BW image.  When
>>>>> I initially read this I did not believe it was correct.  BUT, to
>>>>> a novice, gum over platinum could certainly be considered a
>>>>> "hand colored bw image" even if incorrect.  This is why I say
>>>>> auctioneers/those in the arts need to get their processes
>>>>> straight, but it really stems from people being ignorant of alt,
>>>>> which none of us on this list are.
>>>>> All sources say there are only 3 of this image.  All sources
>>>>> agree one was sold off, one remains in the Met, and one is at
>>>>> the Moma.  I don't know the buyer of the $2.9 million one, though.
>>>>> The Photo On Campus article is really a neat one because they
>>>>> have gone to recreate where the image was taken.  This magazine
>>>>> referred to it as "a richly layered gum bichromate print."
>>>>> Again, a layer of pd lurking in there is not too far off the
>>>>> description but enough for us altees.  Believe me, I am not
>>>>> justifying this error, just acknowledging how it can happen,
>>>>> especially knowing how few photographers even understand what a
>>>>> gum print even is.
>>>>> But my other source  is the Steichen book (Lowell 1978) wherein
>>>>> Steichen is writing to Stieglitz and says ,"...Another one [-]
>>>>> Moonrise [Mamaroneck, New York, 1904, pl. 35] in three
>>>>> printings:  first printing, grey black plat[inum]--2nd, plain
>>>>> blue print [cyanotype] (secret)[-] 3rd, greenish gum. It is so
>>>>> very dark I must take the glass off because it acts too much
>>>>> like a mirror.  I hope they will handle it carefully--of course
>>>>> the varnish will protect it some--"
>>>>> Source Leaf 54, Alfred Stieglitz Archive, Collection of American
>>>>> Literature, the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale
>>>>> University, New Haven, Conn.
>>>>> I have no idea what "secret" refers to.
>>>>> This description refers to the "cyano/plati one at the Moma. It
>>>>> is pictured in color in the book.  In the back of the book it
>>>>> describes the plate as a platinum and ferroprussiate print! So
>>>>> either they, too, left out the gum layer, or the three process
>>>>> print Steichen refers to is NOT the one in the Moma and refers
>>>>> to one of the two others. BUT both of the images I have of the
>>>>> print that sold for $2.9 million are the same print, looking
>>>>> very much like a layer of yellow and blue gum over a pt print.
>>>>> Much more glowing than the cyano/pd in the Moma.
>>>>> End of story, not really important, just thought it'd be of
>>>>> interest to someone out there, and having NOTHING to do with our
>>>>> cigar boy.  Can't wait for my Vanity Fair to come in the mail
>>>>> now....
>>>>> Chris
>>>>> __________________
>>>>> Christina Z. Anderson
>>>>> http://christinaZanderson.com/
>>>>> __________________
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Thayer"
>>>>> <kthayer@pacifier.com>
>>>>> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 9:29 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'
>>>>> Actually, the analysis, on the two that were owned by the
>>>>> Metropolitan, one of which was auctioned for $2.9 million, was done
>>>>> by the conservation department at the Metropolitan (who do have
>>>>> access to electron microscopes and all the best techniques for
>>>>> determining what a print is made of).  By whose assertion is it
>>>>> said
>>>>> that the print that sold for $2.9 million was gum over
>>>>> platinum?  By
>>>>> the Metropolitan's assertion, by the experts who spoke on the
>>>>> record
>>>>> about the sale at the time, and by the assertion of the auction
>>>>> catalog itself.  I assume that the analysis of the cyanotype over
>>>>> platinum owned by MOMA was done by MOMA.  ArtNews is just simply
>>>>> wrong, as was the person who claimed on this thread that the print
>>>>> that sold for $2.9 million was a straight gum print; it's just
>>>>> not so.
>>>>> But that wasn't the question I was trying to answer today; I've
>>>>> known
>>>>> those facts for several years already.  What I was trying to
>>>>> determine today was what was the image that was reproduced on
>>>>> page 61
>>>>> of Vanity Fair?  Your comment made it seem like you were saying
>>>>> that
>>>>> the image in Vanity Fair was the same image as the one that sold
>>>>> for
>>>>> $2.9 million, but maybe one of the other prints?  That's what
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> make sense to me (besides the assertion that the one that sold for
>>>>> $2.9 million was a gum print, which simply isn't accurate).  Why
>>>>> would one of those prints be in a show at a gallery?  I can imagine
>>>>> one of them showing up at Christy's or Sotheby's, or in a museum
>>>>> retrospective,  but why at Greenberg; it didn't make sense to me.
>>>>> And now Tom has solved the mystery; it wasn't that image at all but
>>>>> the one I found online, and whatever you were talking about didn't
>>>>> have any particular connection to the thread.  Okay, that makes
>>>>> sense
>>>>> to me, and that's all I was looking for, was some sense.
>>>>> Katharine
>>>>> On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>>>>>> Well,  okay, since no one would answer my question I spent the
>>>>>> afternoon out in a roaring sleetstorm looking for a copy of
>>>>>> the  April Vanity Fair to answer the question for myself.  I
>>>>>> went to the  library and  all the stores that might carry
>>>>>> general interest  magazines in my nearest big town, and no one
>>>>>> has the April issue  available yet.
>>>>>> I was curious which print of Steichen's was reproduced, in an
>>>>>> effort to make sense of the statement made earlier in this
>>>>>> thread:   ""There was a good article on this image in Photo On
>>>>>> Campus about  the one that sold for 3 million.  That was a gum
>>>>>> print, but it says  there were three prints of this negative
>>>>>> made so I wonder how the  third one was made."
>>>>>> For the record, the  print that sold for $2.9 million was not a
>>>>>> gum print,  but gum over platinum.  There were two other prints
>>>>>> made  from the same negative; one of them, which Stieglitz gave
>>>>>> to the  Metropolitan in 1933 and is still in the Met's
>>>>>> collection AFAIK,  has been analyzed and is believed to be hand-
>>>>>> applied colori over  platinum.  The third, which is owned by
>>>>>> MOMA,  is platinum and  cyanotype.
>>>>>> I found an image online from the current Steichen exhibition
>>>>>> at  Greenberg that we can actually all look at so we can all be
>>>>>> on the  same page; I don't know if this is the one that was
>>>>>> reproduced in  Vanity Fair, and  I also don't know why it seems
>>>>>> to be on a gay  website.  The point is that it's an example of
>>>>>> cyanotype over  palladium, which Tom was asking about, and I
>>>>>> think it's absolutely  stunning.  I have a number of Steichen
>>>>>> monographs but I've never  seen this particular image before.
>>>>>> I wouldn't have believed it  possible to get such warm flesh
>>>>>> tones simply from a combination of  palladium and cyanotype,
>>>>>> but I'm told by someone who used to print  with this
>>>>>> combination that this is typical of the combination of
>>>>>> processes.  This is the first time ever that I have wished to
>>>>>> print  in any process than gum; I really love the way this looks.
>>>>>> http://boyculture.typepad.com/boy_culture/2009/03/through-the-
>>>>>> years.html
>>>>>> Katharine
>>>>>> On Mar 9, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't have Vanity Fair in front of me and it would take
>>>>>>> some  traveling to find one;  can someone enlighten me  as to
>>>>>>> which  print is reproduced in the magazine?  Thanks,
>>>>>>> Katharine
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Tom Hawkins wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>>>> I know itıs only a magazine reproduction, but...
>>>>>>>> In the April issue of Vanity Fair (p.61) thereıs an image
>>>>>>>> from a Steichen exhibit currently  at Greenberg in NYC.
>>>>>>>> Itıs described as a ³palladium ferroprusiate print.²
>>>>>>>> Am I correct in assuming thatıs a gum over palladium?
>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>> www.tomhawkinsphotographs.com