From: Dave Rose (photo@wir.net)
Date: 02/04/01-12:06:23 AM Z
Regarding visible brush strokes and 'bleeding' margins of a print.... it's
really a matter of aesthetics. I've personally never wanted to display
anything beyond the image itself, and besides, my images can stand on their
own merits, without the trickery of a clever border. In my opinion, the
extraneous brush marks are usually an undesirable distraction, adding
nothing to the image. There have been too many times I've seen a mediocre
'alt-photo' image with clever borders, and the message is obvious: the image
basically sucks, and the photographer is trying real hard to prove to the
world that it was 'handmade' and therefore presumably 'real art'. Despite
my opinions on the subject, I have seen brush-stroke borders that have been
quite exciting and effective.
Sarah wrote: "Like Judy, I prefer to register by eye and if some dimensional
change has occurred I choose what will be in focus and what will fall out of
focus".
Basically what you're doing is accepting "some dimensional change" and then
making a compromise in print quality. With 8x10" prints, this is not a big
issue. But, by using pin registration, and controlling dimensional change,
it's possible to have *everything* in focus. If the goal is to have
deliberately degraded print quality, that's OK.... again, it's a matter of
aesthetics. Some of the first gum prints I ever saw (in a Manhattan
gallery) were of the 'fuzzy mud' variety. I wanted to vomit when I saw
them. But, I'm sure other people would view the same prints and be
impressed by the 'soft, painterly quality'! When I began making my own gum
prints, I took great pains to hold fine detail. What I like about gum is
the ability to make a distinctly sharp photographic image that has the look
and feel of a fine watercolor painting.
Very interesting to hear of other's approaches to printing. Thanks for
sharing, Sarah.
Best regards,
Dave Rose AKA Cactus Cowboy
Big Wonderful Wyoming
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Van Keuren" <svk@steuber.com>
> The practice of punching holes in the margins of a print destroys some of
> the 'object quality' (a term I picked up somewhere and liked) of the
print,
> INHO. Although I write notes describing each layer of the print in pencil
> around the edges of my sized BFK on the image side and although I don't
mask
> margins and a pattern of brushstrokes of different colors builds up around
> the image,the print develops a warm handled look that punched holes would
> take away. Like Judy, I prefer to register by eye and if some dimensional
> change has occurred I choose what will be in focus and what will fall out
of
> focus. I have found that little pieces of magic mending tape, that I've
> pressed against my fingers to take away some of the tack, can hold the
thin
> edges of an 8x10 pinhole negative (exposed in a film holder), overlapping
as
> little as 1/8 of an inch. The rest of the strip of tape anchors the
negative
> to the printing paper. Using transparent tape means that the painted
margins
> are not interrupted with tape shapes. Two pieces of tape, each less than
> half an inch long, are all that I usually need.
>
> Sarah Van Keuren
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST