Re: DeCosse prints

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Witho Worms en Jorien van Santen (verzet13@xs4all.nl)
Date: 04/05/02-03:37:16 AM Z


Alejandro,

To make a pure platinum print there is no need for brush development. Just
use ammonium ferric oxalate and process as a POP print (Zia). If you don't
dry the paper completely after coating then there is no need for
development.

Witho

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Lopez de Haro" <alhr@wanadoo.fr>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: DeCosse prints

> Hi Keith:
>
> I did try to make sense of what you said about a "spreader", but honestly
I
> can't picture it. Could you possible mail it to me off the list as a jpeg
> file? I have no problem with large jpeg file, I have cable internet.
>
> When I ask you about "brush development" I meant developing by brush the
> 100% platinum print, not the coating part. In other words, the developer
is
> in the brush instead in the tray.
>
> Concerning the enlarged negative vs. the non enlarged negative (in-camera
> negative), I agree with you 100%, there is something missing in the
enlarged
> one when you look the final print.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro López de Haro
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Taylor" <keithmtaylor@mac.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:06 AM
> Subject: Re: DeCosse prints
>
>
> Alejandro,
> I coat the paper using a small spreader made from "velvet" wrapped
> around a piece of plastic, 2" x 3". It's more of a synthetic velvet, if
> that makes sense. For the larger prints it's just a matter of making a
> larger version. I've used brushes which work OK for the smaller prints
> but I just cannot make a rod/tube work for me. I did use a rod in
> Britain which worked fine, but here in the USA, no way. The spreaders
> are so easy to make in batches you don't have to worry too much about
> cleaning them etc.
> Can I tell the difference between prints? I guess the differences are
> there if you look for them. A print from an in-camera negative 11x14 or
> thereabouts will always be better ( or should be ) than a 3rd or 4th
> generation image. But with careful working methods, choice of films etc.
> it's possible to come extremely close.
> Keith.
> On Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 12:22 PM, Alejandro Lopez de Haro wrote:
>
> > Hi Keith:
> >
> > When you say that the prints are all platinum, are you brush developing?
> >
> > Congratulations on your forthcoming coauthoring portfolio.
> >
> > On another thought, can you tell the difference from a p/p prints made
> > from
> > a non-enlarged negative and one from an enlarged negative?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alejandro López de Haro
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keith Taylor" <keithmtaylor@mac.com>
> > To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 4:59 AM
> > Subject: DeCosse prints
> >
> >
> >> Alejandro,
> >> Cy's prints - all platinum - vary from 14" square through to about
> >> 34" x
> >> 20". The majority, as you say, are approx. 20" square. They are all
> >> enlarged from either 120 or 4x5 negs. I have only experimented a
> >> couple
> >> of times with digital output using an imagesetter. That was for one of
> >> the 34"x20" prints, but eventually, because of time constraints, I made
> >> the negative using the Arista lith film, APHS. Too much to learn too
> >> quickly!
> >> Regarding your previous message about co-signing prints, that's a
> >> tricky
> >> one. All of the prints are made under Cy's supervision at his studio,
> >> but I don't sign the prints. I've heard all the arguments for and
> >> against the practise. I've just finished a portfolio of polymer
> >> photogravures for Cy that will be co-signed though.
> >> Regards,
> >>
> Keith Taylor
> Minneapolis MN
> (612) 721 2286
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 09:34 AM, Alejandro Lopez de Haro
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Keith:
> >>>
> >>> Just curious, de Cosse prints comes in all sizes, but I think the
> >>> largest
> >>> ones are: 23x18", are these made by a 20x24 camera or are these
> >>> enlarged
> >>> negatives? If so, are they digitally enlarged negatives?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Alejandro
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST