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

Re: Pond-moonrise (was: Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

Ah, you're right. I had looked at two others (one of the flatirons and the Big White Cloud) which didn't have the disclaimer, and figured that since it was only on that one handcolored platinum print, it must mean something ominous. But it's on not only many of the gum over platinums, including three of the Flatirons, but also on many of his direct carbons. Then the gallery I was following with the "next" arrows took me into the Demachys, and every one of the Demachys had the banner, including gums and oil prints and even a gelatin silver print, and every one of the Frank Eugene platinum prints. I stopped pressing "next" at that point, because the status line said I was on 148 out of 25,000 something, and I figured I'd learned what I needed to know.

So, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, obviously, sorry about that. But I'd still like to know why that print looks brown, if it's supposed to be blue and yellow like the other ones.

Thanks for the correction,

On Mar 18, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:

Actually, I'm seeing that disclaimer on many of his gum over works at the museum site.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pond-moonrise (was: Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

On Mar 18, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:

Hmm, maybe you haven't caught up with the rest of the discussion; the print in the Chicago show was from the Met's collection, the middle print on the page I posted, the one that looks just brown in the jpeg. I doubt the jpeg (from the Met's site) does it justice, but it's interesting how little the present reproduction matches past descriptions of the print.

Something interesting to note is the highlighted banner at the top of the Met's page for this print: "This information may change as the result of ongoing research." When I first saw it, I assumed it was just a standard banner they have on all their images, but I don't see it on other pages, so maybe this particular print is undergoing particular scrutiny just now. It seems unlikely that the brown tone is just really poor scanning techniques on their part, so what I fear is that the pigments he used to stain the print were not permanent and have faded over time.

I was going to post the URL for the page, but it's three lines long and I don't know how to do the tiny URL thing. Anyway, you can get it by googling Metropolitan Museum Steichen pond moonrise, or some similar combination of words, if you want to see it as it is on their site.

I know, here's another Job for Judy! She thinks she has other things to do, but we need her to run a few errands. Up to Greenberg to assess the coloration in Cigar Man and see what else she can scope out there with her artist's eye, and then over to the Met to have a gander at their moonrise print and see if it really has turned brown.

Well, speaking of having other things to do, I have the color separations for a whole series to print out, and a stack of things to frame, so I'd better get started on it. It's been fun....