[alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints

[etienne garbaux]

Davidh wrote:

>Take a look at these Platinum prints. Printed recently from glass
>negatives exposed in 1911. I think they are really beautiful examples
>of the genre.

Were any of these prints made directly from the glass negatives?  At 
least some weren't (we know this because the prints are available in 
several sizes).  If the ones in the portfolio are direct prints, the 
negatives appear to have been larger than 8x10 -- relatively 
unlikely, I'd say.  So my guess is that they were all made from copy 
negatives, probably digitally scanned and manipulated.  This is also 
supported by the extreme uniformity of the density range of the final 
prints -- much more uniform than someone making glass negatives under 
a wide range of lighting conditions in 1911 is likely to have achieved.

Judging from the scans on the web site (which is potentially 
dangerous), the prints appear to be technically superb.  In the end, 
though, I think the extreme uniformity of print DR actually works 
against the portfolio from an artistic perspective.  I'm not fond of 
the tone mapping they used, which exhibits more contrast in the 
highlights than a straight print from the glass negatives would 
likely do, and includes some paper white in each image "whether it 
needs it or not."  In other words, from an artistic standpoint, my 
opinion is that the actual printing negatives had a wee bit too much 
DR for the ES of the process, as well as more contrast in the 
highlights than would be optimum.  This is particularly annoying to 
me in the images of large expanses of ice and snow, which could have 
been shown with much more delicacy.  If the portfolio prints were 
made directly from the original negatives, IMO they chose a process 
with a wee bit too short ES.

Of course, I haven't seen the actual prints, only the scans on the 
web site, so I could be laboring under a misapprehension.

Best regards,

etienne