Jeffrey D. Mathias (jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:33:58 -0500
FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
> ...
> but I don't do Pt/Pd, so I never read the fine details on the method.
>...
> My question is, if we realize that we are printing dots (that are approaching
> continous tone *VISUALLY*, not physically), then why would one wants to use
> Pt/Pd? Why don't use simple gum?
> ...
Dave,
Similar to Judy's reply, I prefer to use Pt/Pd. I like it better. In
fact, I have tried gum and just don't like it. Although I do like gum
prints made by others and even have some in my collection. I have seen
gum prints with incredible detail. Getting great detail might be more
related to the ability of the photographer rather than the process.
I just like Pt/Pd. I like working with it; and I like the way it
looks. Some day I hope to use digital negatives. But the digital
technology will have to be there for Pt/Pd because I have no known plans
to use any other process.
Occasionally I will see a color photograph (once or twice a year). So
maybe some day I'll learn the Woodbury process as I really like the way
this process makes color prints.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41