From: Sarah Van Keuren (svk@steuber.com)
Date: 02/05/01-04:25:17 PM Z
Dave, you are right that registration is seldom an issue when working with
sized BFK in the relatively small 8x10 inch format. I prefer not to have to
compensate for lack of proper registration but sometimes students are faced
with this problem and having to decide what must be in focus makes them
think about their image in a new way.
Actually, like you, I don't exhibit my work with the brushed borders showing
and I agree that it is sometimes a distraction and an attempt to make a
mediocre image more interesting. But I do store most of my prints loose and
sometimes show them without mats when teaching.
Your regard for the gum print as "a distinctly sharp photographic image that
has the look and feel of a fine watercolor painting" must be connected to
the kind of negatives you use. I see a gum print as layers of glaze with a
subtle bas-relief of sculpted paper. I like the glossy deep darks and the
fibrous raised highlights. This fits with my use of the pinhole negative and
my subject matter which is often a quivering human who is felt more as a
dimensional presence within an atmospheric landscape than as an explicit
individual. Probably other gum printers will give strikingly different
descriptions of what they are after.
I just got home from being away and haven't had a chance to read all the
other messages.
Sarah
> 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