>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Peter Marshall wrote:
> > I was mainly considering processes other than platinum as I've always
> > regarded that as more of a mainstream rather than an 'alt' process although
> > I hope this will not stir up arguments.>
>
> Peter, what's to argue? "Mainstream" is a good (albeit polite) term.
> Platinum printing is, 99 times out of a 100, son of F64, the view camera
> esthetic, entirely unrelated to the iconoclasm of Fichter, Hahn, Nettles
> & co.
Judy,
Not to dispute your point above, but perhaps I've been exposed to the
1% more than most. I've seen the work of lots of photographers whose
print statements with platinum are far from the modernist view of
photography exemplified by f/64.
A few months ago Pradip Malde sent me a web address (which I seem to
have misplaced) of a recent series he had made which beautifully (at
least as far as I could tell on my monitor) combined platinum images,
hand drawing, and found objects. Perhaps if he is reading this, he
could post that address, as I seem to have misplaced it. Anyway, I know
others who have been working with platinum for 30 years and have yet to
produce an f/64 style image with it. Another person who comes to mind
is Sally Mann. Her series of 13-year old girls was originally done in
platinum. Certainly these were shot with a large format camera and
printed "straight," but Ansel Adams, they ain't.
The reality is that any image making process is defined by the rules
we create for it - i.e. if platinum printing means view camera work of
the western landscape school to you, then those are the images that you
make with it. It isn't an intrinsic property of the medium, however.
Anyway, to apologize to Peter. Even though I quoted you, I wasn't really
trying to single you (or the UK) out, just trying to make the point
that you also eloquently made, that our understanding of history is often
a personal, non-consensual one.
Carson
carson@ileaf.com