> Eric J. Neilsen wrote:
> > If the name game is an attempt to bring in an audience, be that students
> > or buyers, let it reflect the possibilites. There can be no renaissance
> > without substance. Call out to the students and buyers with images of
> > lasting art. Hands on photography, (Palladio users need not apply).
> > Putting a name "Renaissance Photography" onto a course listing would
> > probably bring more art historians in to the rolls than it would modern
> > artist, (todays photographers/print makers).
> >
> > EJ Neilsen
>
> Am I to understand that Palladio paper is not considered to be
> alternative process, renaissance, classical etc? So only a HANDMADE
> print gets that honorable distinction? Where does that leave the many
> prints made around the turn of the century on factory-made papers?
> The comment "Palladio users need not apply" raises my ire and makes
> me bear my teeth. I have chosen the alternative processes as the
> primary means of my artistic expression because of the final
> result,the image imbeded in and on the fibers of a watercolor paper.
> For me the IMAGE is everything. How you get there is secondary.
> For all the handcoaters out there, I ask this: Do you or do you not
> use a factory made film to expose your image in camera? Did you
> construct your camera? What about your lens? The light meter you use
> was probably made in a factory. I know that some of us make our own
> paper base.
> I do not believe that the use of these factory made tools makes the
> practitioner any less of an artist. Though a good hand coater would
> have a more intimate grasp of the inner workings of his/her craft.
> Following the same reasoning the use of Palladio paper should not
> disqualify the image or the artist.
> I use Palladio paper as well as hand coating for my imagery depending
> on the particular image. Speaking from personal experience I feel that
> Palladio paper is in no way inferior to hand coated materials.
> I also want to be clear in that I am not putting down handcoating. I
> think it is important to have an understanding of the process from
> beginning to end. I simply feel that palladio's paper is an extremely
> useful and beautiful tool and those that use it should not be
> overlooked or dismissed out of hand.
>
> Sal Mancini
> Palladio
Sal, Palladio has enabled many to produce platinum/palladium prints over
the years. As my years involved in platinum/palladium (NOBLE PRINTING),
have shown me, the printers in this medium take great pride in the ablity
to make beautiful images. The ability to fully understand the process and
all of it's nuances, can only come from the handcoating experience.
To be able to buy your paper, or pay someone to create it for you, doesn't
mean that you fully understand the power of the process. You can mearly
drive the car. Don't try and enter the race. This is not to say that
anyone who uses Palladio paper knows nothing about the process. It is
just that that there are so few Mozart's and too many player pianos.
I have respect for good images, I have more respect for the creative
process and good images.
Palladio is great for those with limited access or for quick instruction
to beginners, but it is no substitute for hand coating, chosing the paper,
the chemical mix - plat/pall, the edge treatment and so on.
EJ Neilsen
PS Since I started this response, i let it sleep over night, others have
since commented on the paper. The basic limitations of Palladio, and hugh
cost compared to handcoating, will always put it on the option list first
for beginners but last on the list for craftspeople.
There is also something to knowing exactly what is in the paper, %
platinum, %palladium.
As far as speed goes, I coated as many as 100 20"x24" prints in three
days. I would hate to see the bill from Palladio for that kind of
production.
Bottom line, the creative process sometimes exceeds the limits of good
tools - Palladio, and you just need to have the best - handcoated.