[alt-photo] Re: another new gum...

[Paul Viapiano]

Hi everyone,

Last week was a very busy one getting ready for our Father's Day celebration
here so I wasn't able to keep up with alt list. And no, I haven't been 
offended or scared away ;-)

I wanted to have time to respond thoughtfully.

I think critique is invaluable. It's good to hear what others think and have
a fresh set of eyes to view your work. If an artist truly believes in the
work they're creating, it won't sway them but will, I believe, enrich
his/her artmaking in other ways. I'm surprised there isn't more sharing of
work here.

With the prints of the cups and the doors, I was attempting to get a 
photorealistic print, much in the manner of Keith Taylor's incredible gums. 
The combination of Fabriano EW HP and Arista OHP, helped realize that 
intention as well as using a negative that had much more range than anything 
I've seen suggested here or elsewhere. The pigments matched Keith's 
published choices and the paper was unsized, although I did not mount the 
paper to aluminum sheeting or another substrate.

I still have a long way to go in refining this technique to my satisfaction, 
but at least the seeds are there for further work.

The print of the lone tree, which seemed to generate much discussion, was 
done differently. I wanted to print larger (13.5" square on 16x20) than I 
had before, so that necessitated using a paper negative, not having any 
17x22 OHP at home. The neg was made with Strathmore layout paper (16 lb) and 
was not waxed. At that size I wasn't about to mess with wax.

Since I was using a paper neg, I decided to go with Rives BFK. In my 
experience, paper negs can give a softer look than OHP. The Rives paper is 
very absorbent with much more texture than the Fabriano. Working unsized, 
it's always given me a very watercolor-y feel. I was looking forward to 
making a print with a totally different feel to it. I used Q Gold, Q Red and 
Phthalo Blue.

I love how gum can be so many things. The variables that drive people nuts 
can really turn out to be its biggest strengths once sorted out.

Thanks all for your comments. I hope you don't mind if I continue to post 
images from to time...

Paul



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diana Bloomfield" <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net>
To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list" 
<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:34 PM
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: another new gum...


> Hi Keith,
>
> Yes, could be a difference in monitors, but I suspect we simply have  an 
> aesthetic difference-- with this particular image.
>
> I feel bad talking about Paul and his prints, as though he's somewhere  in 
> the room listening, but not allowed to respond-- but my point,  really, 
> was that I think it could be stronger with printing it  differently (and 
> without introducing muddiness or a "cloying"  quality).  In fact, as it 
> stands, the bottom part of the image--  though not dark or rich-- looks 
> muddy to me now.
>
> I like the subject matter, and even though I like the way the sky is 
> rendered,  the rest just seems to be lacking somehow..  Maybe Marek 
> clarified it by saying that, overall, the image has a cyan cast to  it. 
> That's what it looks like to me, too.  I couldn't determine what  it was, 
> except that everything seemed to look the same to me-- There  wasn't that 
> wonderful richness and definition of colors and tones that  were so 
> evident in the first prints posted.  Not that every print has  to be the 
> same, but this just seem much less "accomplished" to me.
>
> How one chooses to print-- in whatever process-- should, of course,  have 
> to satisfy no one but the image-maker.  But this reminds me of  students I 
> sometimes have, who will show just amazing work-- with a  real eye for 
> what makes a compelling image-- and not only that, they  know how to 
> print-- and I have to wonder what they're doing in my  class in the first 
> place.  Then these same students will turn around  the next week-- and 
> show work that makes it hard to believe it's  coming from the same set of 
> eyes.  My usual response is, "What in the  hell were you thinking with 
> this?"  (Though I  typically say that in a  much nicer way.)
>
> So I stand by my comment that, print-wise, this just isn't nearly as 
> accomplished or as strong as Paul's earlier prints he posted-- at  least, 
> from my viewpoint (and how it appears on my screen).  Not  everything has 
> to be the same, obviously-- but, for me, it's hard to  believe the same 
> person who made this, also made those others.
>
> The good news, Paul, is that people are so taken with your images,  that 
> you're getting responses and some actual dialogue about them.  I  hope 
> you'll post more.  :)
>
> Diana
>
> On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Keith Gerling wrote:
>
>> Diana,
>>
>> I find the sky in this work to be incredibly rich and complete.    Maybe 
>> its
>> a difference in monitors or something, but I really cannot visualize 
>> this
>> picture any "richer" w/o being cloying.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Diana Bloomfield <
>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you really think so, Keith?  It seems to me I've seen some  wonderful 
>>> gum
>>> prints that are rich and full of color that don't actually cross  that 
>>> fine
>>> line into muddiness.  I also see this image (subject matter) open  to 
>>> various
>>> "techniques" and options.  Obviously, a different mood would be  evoked 
>>> if
>>> printed differently,  but I can see this image printed both richer  and
>>> darker-- even, and especially, in the bottom third (without  evolving 
>>> into
>>> muddiness) and becoming a print that's is as interesting and  seemingly
>>> "perfect" as this one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Keith Gerling wrote:
>>>
>>> Nice Paul.  The technique should fit the subject, which this does.   I 
>>> like
>>>> the way you handled the bottom third of this composition.  A richer
>>>> handling
>>>> would have turned to mud.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Diana Bloomfield <
>>>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, this is nice, too-- but I like the others you did so much 
>>>>> better.
>>>>> Maybe I just like the images themselves better than this one, but  I 
>>>>> also
>>>>> thought the printing was just superior and richer in every way.   I 
>>>>> think
>>>>> this is the style (that a lot of people seem to love, I guess) that
>>>>> always
>>>>> makes me think of Polaroid emulsion lifts.  That's what this more
>>>>> "painterly" style looks like to me.  For what it's worth, my vote  is 
>>>>> for
>>>>> the
>>>>> other way.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Diana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 12, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's another new gum in a more painterly style than my last two
>>>>>
>>>>>> offerings...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4691939849/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo