Re: moving to T disucssions

rosebud (rosebud@why.net)
Sun, 29 Dec 1996 17:18:01 +0000

> Don't have the chug, chug of a computer to make digital negs. But I
> wonder about the effect of each process, each medium. When it comes to
> printing, I've found that each process I've worked with has a distinctive
> look. In fact if I change the paper support within a process, I again
> achieve a distinctive appearance for the photograph.

small snip...
> I've only seen a couple of pieces of ink jet work, and they were early
> works from students. So, I really can't comment on the potential of this
> process. But, I'll be interested to see what exhibition quality looks
> like.

I'd like to believe, or actually I do believe, that a digital negative
will create any contrast, D-max, or subtlety of detail as any
conventional films, only better. I haven't the time or resources to
experiment with all processes. But I've done traditional silver,
cyanotype, and Van Dyke from digital negatives. I'm presently working
with a photopolymer plate, using dig. negs and pulling intaglio prints.
I'll be trying a digital photogravure in the spring.

I really love Van Dyke brown, but like sepia toning B&W prints, I miss a
true black in the shadows. That is something an ink-jet print can
accomplish--a Van Dyke brown with a true black shadow. It would look
like a duo-tone or two-color gum, only it's really a full-color image of
a (very) limited hue. I guess this would qualify as a "simulated" Van
Dyke brown. Only a Van Dyke process can produce a Van Dyke brown. (ahem)

I saw an exhibition of Manual's (Ed Hill/Suzanne Bloom) work. It was all
high-end ink-jet done by Cone Editions. It was truly beautiful in every
regard.

FWIW, I've been wanting to do similar 2-color gum prints...I built the
UV box, bought the contact vacuum frame w/reg. pins, and have a nice
supply of chemistry and paper...just no damn time! I'd hoped that it
would be something I'd be able to do while finishing an MFA. That's a
big joke...on me.

Later.

Darryl