> Darryl, I'm not sure I follow you. The "best" gum print is very different
> from the "best" gravure, and sometimes the "worst" print is "best" and
> here we go again with "the rules of photography."
Yes, you caught me making a rule up out of (ignorant) thin air. I should
know better, after making Kwik-Print images for a couple of years. Now,
there is a process that is definetly "made" in the printing. Negatives
be damned.
another message, same topic...
> My way of working has been to find the print in the printing, to think,
> what if I try it this way, and tear it up or wipe it off if it's NG. That
> may be a stupid approach but there it is
Klaus must be smiling again. You've stated a formidible rebuttal to
making digital negatives for my "any and all processes approach." I've
been searching for a process that suits my "ideal" of what my images
"should" look like, not looking at the images themselves...hey they're
on a computer screen, its a virtual image, finished electronically, but
not on any surface. So it isn't so easy or straightforward,now.
I still want to "handle" the paper, develop the image, but I don't want
any surprises, mysteries or (Heaven forbid) any serendipity. It's
already finished and I'm trying to slam it onto a "suitable" surface
with a "suitable" process.
Jeez, now I'm going to have to think about this some more.
Later. Big bubble bursting in air.
Darryl
----------