From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 11/11/02-03:46:32 PM Z
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 dsbryant@mindspring.com wrote:
> This weekend while reading a book about Joseph Sudek one photograph was
> credited as being a pigmented print.
Don, did it really say "pigmented print" or maybe "pigment print"? I don't
recall the term "pigmented" in such context. I have a couple of Sudek
catalogs & saw his show at ICP, as I recall (now please be nice if I've
fuzzed it) the term was "pigment print." I was annoyed that nothing more
was told, certainly IMO the process is a good part of the effect/meaning.
Author lecturer curator knew nothing more -- and cared less ! In fact I
turned out to be the only person at the lecture who had even a clue -- and
that was only about why some were reversed, which would i believe suggest
carbon transfer.
Interestingly, I've seen Sudek's black and white prints & never found them
special. The color prints were sublime.
And BTW: "Pigmented" could also be a translator's error... Was the book
originally in English or written by someone English as 2nd language?
Cassell's has only a small group entry for "pigment processes"
using term "pigment print" in description to mean carbon.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST