From: Pam Niedermayer (pam_pine@cape.com)
Date: 02/10/01-07:22:01 PM Z
I thought the article was boring and basically useless, nothing was
really said that matters, with one exception. I think it's a pretty
good idea to take a single image and print it using all processes. Of
course, it would be quite a negative that would shine in all
processes, but still an interesting illustration of each process.
Pam
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 CMPatti@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I don't know Sara Boxer's work, so I can't comment on how much she
> > knows about photography, but criticizing her for failing to speculate
> > that the older Abbott print was "fuzzy" because it was printed in soft
> > focus (maybe) misses her point. The purpose of the example was to
> > show how the exibit failed to answer obvious questions it raised.
> > She didn't "speculate" that it got fuzzy in fading--she wasn't, in
> > fact, trying to explain the reason for the difference between the two
> > prints. Instead, she was obviously posing the type of question that a
> > viewer might ask but which was not answered by the exibit.
>
> Boxer wrote: "Although much is made of how much better Barnes looks soft,
> fuzzy and brown, there is no clear explanation of why the prints turned
> out so different. Both are gelatin silver prints. Does the brown softness
> come from aging as it does in Carleton Watkins's albumen silver prints?
> >From different papers? Who knows?"
>
> That seems to me to fit almost any definition of *speculation.* Yes, there
> is some rhetorical interrogation, but still speculation. And the most
> LIKELY explanation is still conspicuous by its absence.
> ...
-- Pamela G. Niedermayer Pinehill Softworks Inc. 600 W. 28th St., Suite 103 Austin, TX 78705 512-236-1677 http://www.pinehill.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST