Darryl, if you mean you were intending a one-size-fits-all digital
negative that you would use for "any and all processes" -- whattttttt??? I
don't think that's possible, unless digital is VERY different from con
tone.
> 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.
Well I don't INSIST that everyone agree with me, but somehow it seems that
not to let the process GIVE to you ("listen to the print" if you want a
supremely yucky way of saying it) is to give up half your potential before
starting. There is that school of Ansel Adams-style pre-visualization of
course, and I know sometimes I really do have a clear vision in mind and
strive mightily to get it -- so I suppose it works both ways. But if I
know EXACTLY exactly what it's going to look like ahead of time, that's a
lot of the excitement gone right there.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I suspect there isn't as much variety from print to
print with platinum ( and I'm not the one to toy with such as platinum &
gold, who is?) and relatively few different ways to handle them. Varieties
of possible gum experience are so many I find them daunting -- if you let
the mind wander along those lines. More than a person could fathom
even with a computer....
And PS. I saw an absolutely GORGEOUS bromoil today. (Are you there
Henk?) It was in the History of Women in Photography show at the NY Public
library, ending Saturday, sorry to say. Made by a lady used the name
"Nelly" born in Asia Minor: a Russian fella dancing naked at the
Parthenon, 1929. I'm inspired. Also a stunning Gertrude Kasebier one
coat (I think) gum print, in REALLY DARK RICH tones! (The reason I say
one coat is because there was absolutely no sign of re-registering and
when she did you could see it a mile away.)
Cheers,
Judy
----------