|
Mark...
I so totally agree
with you in this respect...when I started printing I always wanted to make sure
I hit my black and white points and that's a good thing to be able to do
technically in any process. But for interpretation and creativity, once you have
the process and technique down, you need to explore other avenues...thanks for
your insight.
Paul
<<<<<By the way, I don't always
print with near paper white in my prints and maximum black. I think this
concept is over rated and one of those rules that prevents printers from
achieving great prints with some images. I enjoy making prints with
darker, richer highlights too. I don't always go for DMax in all my prints
either. I can if I want to, but some images look better to me with out the
extremes of maximum black and paper white. >>>>>
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:50
PM
Subject: Truth Beauty — Pictorialism and
the Photograph as Art response to Chris & Judy's posts
Chris & Judy,
I have this book and have really been
enjoying it. Chris and Judy I think you are both correct.
Judy—the images in SOME cases are reproduced
in the book such that shadow detail is lost. I think this is the only
failing of the book—the images in some cases are not close to being faithfully
reproduced. A bit of dot gain there! I picked two images
reproduced in the book that I was familiar with:
1. Flatiron—Evening by Steichen,
Camera Work no. 14.
http://www.photogravure.com/photogravure_images/medium/CameraWork_14_08.jpg
(by the way, www.photogravure.com is a great site.)
In Truth Beauty, the image is really blocked
up in the area below the gentleman with the hat—overall the image looks darker
in the book.
I am going to check another great book,
Camera Work—The Complete Photographs and see if it is in there.
2. The second image is a portrait of
Alfred Stieglitz by Clarence H. White
http://www.geh.org/fm/misdig2/m198121320008.jpg
Again,
here the jpg online shows much more detail—especially noticeable in the dark
jacket.
True, all of these are reproductions and
could even be from different prints. However, the fact that some
reproductions show more shadow detail indicates that it was there in the first
place and probably even more so.
Chris, I have always felt that when I see
the original prints at galleries and museums, most of the vintage alt process
prints are darker and the highlights have more tone in them than just paper
white. I have thought that perhaps this was the "look of the times" but
perhaps also a safe way to print, since blown out highlights would be a really
good way to kill a print. I'd like to hear from others on this.
By the way, I don't always print with near
paper white in my prints and maximum black. I think this concept is over
rated and one of those rules that prevents printers from achieving great
prints with some images. I enjoy making prints with darker, richer
highlights too. I don't always go for DMax in all my prints either.
I can if I want to, but some images look better to me with out the
extremes of maximum black and paper white. It's funny, the Ansel Adams
print in Truth and Beauty almost looks and feels out of place.
I am enjoying exploring the differences in
printing with polymer plate photogravure in comparison with
platinum/palladium. I find I like a darker look with the photogravure,
though I am working on printing with only very very light tones
also.
--
Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
|