Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'
- To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
- Subject: Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'
- From: Keith Gerling <keith.gerling@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:15:43 -0600
- Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
- Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;bh=S70jlKcpqNrRw0FFbIrv/z418yWhJz3R0Ce/DGBq+1g=;b=wwDci805EQs3hoWxZ14v+Hy+IrY0K1MWh/E+WOPmpVxbU9W0TI1+b/dqgCjZ8kxbARm0K22REVwUO618bdI87O+MuAlo+7wAZHhfNzmCNp8EjZ3Exzd2+gAUIQWcWxuFhrOS+IoXmEEwTQC5lEjFGQV9AkjgNZedHUIZiXsyumg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;b=KtJEX+/qyAszVFwbD9b6OMGquTb90CldIteUPdOM6WhqcOtTtS3v9bfqfsxj0Rt8hL7cEgzL5YPlPMNUofwyhrRB2WOEdP9pcay8XsHDdPEjPStdSz1aUsWvdgtj0YAG6oR1c87Ycj0FMqnanXIrGyIQ6HR4sVfPnudyIdv99Ig=
- In-reply-to: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0903141948140.24044@panix2.panix.com>
- List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
- References: <C5DCDB97.1573C%tomehawk@ix.netcom.com><Pine.NEB.4.64.0903141948140.24044@panix2.panix.com>
- Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
The April issue. Don't suppose this could be an April Fool's joke, do you? On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Tom Hawkins wrote:
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???
1. an original (one of 3 originals I gather,tho i'm not sure if anyone has seen them & if we know which one).
2. a repro in Vanity Fair
3. A print being shown at Greenberg gallery...
It's not clear (in my welter of 150 e-mails) if the print at Greenberg is an "original" -- or if so, if it's "the" original referred to.
As for the image in Vanity Fair... NO image I've ever encountered in a mass magazine relates to an original faithfully except by accident, so any conclusions about the kind os subtleties the experts on this list are parsing from it are dubious. The guys (almost certainly guys !!!) at the printer's doing prepress can make Photoshop stand up, sing Dixie, and dance the macarena. I mean they are GOOD -- for their own purposes.
For instance, two of 3 prints I had in Chris James's 2nd edition were QUITE changed in the pre-press -- one of them much for the better (thanks fellas !) because the subtle contrast would not have shown up... the other added a border where I had none on a 4th side, the lack of which evidently bothered them, and odds are in fact it looked better on the page that way.
I only dwell on this (I was, as noted VERY satisfied) because these parsings of possibilities in the (or *an*) original print may be irrelevant...
J.
|