Re: Vision and printmaking

Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk)
Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:37 +0000

In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970215115926.00732b20@roadrunner.com>

Richard

Although I think much of what you appropriate from others is impossible to
argue with, I think the conclusions you go on to draw from it are
fundamentally unsound and don't actually follow.

There are various ways of working with platinum, and for many photographers
handcoated paper is not a necessary part of this. These included some of the
finest photographers who have ever made use of platinum - including Frederick
Evans who I mentioned earlier. In the heyday of platinum few photographers
used hand coated paper.

I've handcoated and I've used Palladio. If I was starting to print a new
edition tomorrow I'd probably hand coat, not because it would be in any way
superior but because I prefer a heavier weight paper (and it might save a
little money which is short at present!) I don't even feel a better printmaker
if I use platinum rather than silver gelatin - it is simply a matter of
fitting the materials and process to the vision.

You can also do it just as badly hand coated or Palladio or any other process
of course. I end up feeling people who have good vision as printmakers make
good prints, those who don't make bad ones and the choice of medium becomes
irrelevant.

Peter Marshall

On Fixing Shadows, Dragonfire and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures & Gay Pride: http://www.dragonfire.net/~gallery/
and: http://www.speltlib.demon.co.uk/