Re: Pond-moonrise (was: Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'
On Mar 20, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:
But I'm disappointed, because the reason I posted the prints in the
first place was to address Judy's observation that when she saw one
of these prints in person, it seemed to her that the blue must
have been printed with a positive, rather than a negative (sorry,
paraphrasing, but I hope that's the gist). I think it's fairly
obvious that must be true of MoMA's print, at the bottom of the
page, where the blue ( in the form of cyanotype, if MoMA's
description of this print is accurate) replaces all the light
areas and the moon is obviously colored in, without a matching moon
in the reflection. I'm not so sure about the auctioned print, the
gum over platinum, where the light areas remain light; I think with
that one, the gum layers were probably added using the original
negative, or maybe a slightly altered negative, but still a
negative. I asked what you thought about that, and haven't seen an
answer. I'm still interested
To finish off the triad, if by chance it was the Met's print you saw
and were puzzling about, in that case the blue was hand-applied and
not photographically printed at all, which would explain why there
was blue tone in areas where you wouldn't expect there to be tone.
|