From: Don Bryant (email@example.com)
Date: 11/11/02-06:59:45 PM Z
> Don, did it really say "pigmented print" or maybe "pigment print"? I don't
> recall the term "pigmented" in such context.
Yes Judy you are correct, "pigment print" was the wording used.
My faux pas. It was late and violent thunder storms were rolling through my
neighborhood so I mis-remembered the wording. :~)
> 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.
Part of my curiousity was due to seeing prints in other exhibits categorized
(described) as pigment prints and it was never clear to me what that meant.
I vaguely surmised that they were some kind of carbon print.
> 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.
Now that Sandy (and others) have explained the pigment print process my
ephiphany has occured.
> Interestingly, I've seen Sudek's black and white prints & never found them
> special. The color prints were sublime.
I've not seen an actual Sudek, only a cheap reproducton, but even so they
are very compelling for me to look at, the word sublime does come to mind
for me too.
Thanks Judy(and to everyone that replied),
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST