Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:51:00 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Carl Weese wrote:
> the big thing I want from a proof is the ability to review the image and
> decide whether it's really a picture worth printing.---Carl
Among all the deadly chores of photography, proofing strikes me as the
deadliest -- although if you include "work print", that is, a print you
make in the process of getting to perfection, then the target medium is
hard to beat.
Which is to say, I haven't proofed 35 mm since year one (& if anyone wants
to say "it looks it", hmmm, be my guest) but examine the negative with
loupe & lightbox. It's easy to see "composition" and focus thusly, & those
are basically the criteria... aren't they?
However, Dan Donovan's suggestion about proofing platinum with argyrotype
struck me as brilliant -- though I'd substitute vandyke brown, which is
easier to do & the ingredients much easier to get. The motive for Mike
Ware's invention of argyrotype, as I understood it, was for greater
permanence than VDB. For a proof print, that wouldn't be an issue. I note,
also, that I had a student print the same negative in pl-pd & VDB -- the
scale was identical. The only difference to the eye was that the VDB was
warmer in tone.
But the original question, as I recall, included "gum" in the range of
processes to be "proofed" for. Proofing for a gum print is a frail
concept, because, as I have pointed out in this space before, a gum print
is interactive.... You look at what you've got & decide the next step.
Then if it pans out, you have a print. If it doesn't pan out, you add
another coat.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43