From: Joe Portale (jportale@gci-net.com)
Date: 12/30/00-08:47:20 PM Z
Hello Judy,
>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Joe Portale wrote:
> > ...The state of the printiing trade has not evolved to a
> > point where pictures can be reproduced ***EXACTLY*** as they would
appear in
> > real life.
> And may it ever be thus...otherwise our "originals" are sort of pointless,
> aren't they? I mean, buy the book & have a whole portfolio for $29.
That is not what I said. The point was that Randel buried a palladium print
in his section on kallitypes and stated that no one caught it. What I was
saying is that it would be impossible to tell a palladium print and a
kallitype picture apart when reproduced in a book.
> Well, let me quibble here . When you say "well-produced kalli's," you
imply that that's requisite for looking like pt-pd, that an >*ordinary*
pt-pd print is somehow of better *quality* than ordinary kalli. I'd say, at
risk of being accused of "anti-platinum attitude," >and perhaps you, or
Carl, or whoever, will correct me if I'm wrong, but in my experience, scale
is scale, and as easy to get in the >one medium as the other, while in fact
depth of tone may be easier in kalli.
Quibble away, I love a good debat! I would like to know how many kallitypes
are in collections being called platinum or palladium. Hell, I have seen
plain salted paper prints that would baffle many experts with only a visual
examination. Remember your history, kalli's fell to the wayside because of
the generally accepted opinion that platinum would last longer. Some
sophist art historians would even go as far as to claim the lack of
kallitypes from the late part of the 19th century supports the claim they do
not last.
I do not agree. Kalli's can be just as permanent and lovely as any platinum
or palladium print.
> Which is to say that as far as I have been able to discover, the
*difference*, the reason for greater value of pt-pd, is archivality. (I
> don't address prestige, I mean print "quality.") Toning the kalli may take
care of that, partially.
Agreed! Like stated above, the kallitype simply received bad press. It was
almost completely ignored in Europe. Had a fair following in the US. But it
was seen as an amature's media. I guess all the big boys printed platinum
printsand stuck it to the unsuspecting customer, even if the prints were
kallitypes.
> And how about a ringer -- one inkjet print (and no loupes allowed)? New
inks on right paper are claiming 200 years.
Agreed! It would be a fun experiment. I do have doubts about Epson's 200
year claim. I faded a inkjet print in a couple of days by leaving it on a
north face window of my house.
Joe
>
> Judy
>
> .................................................................
> | Judy Seigel, Editor >
> | World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
> | info@post-factory.org >
> | <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
> .................................................................
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/03/01-03:59:43 PM Z CST