From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/11/02-07:59:50 PM Z
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, shannon stoney wrote:
> >
> >I *am* willing to admit that Book 2 (egregious--dioblical, even!-- as
> >it is, and I agree that it is) was one of several stumbles that turned
> >me in the direction of alternative processes (in spite my ignorance of
> >Book 2's howling errors.).
>
> Me too. And it has some nice reproductions in it too of alt process work.
Oh yes, the illustrations were stunning. Which was a two-edged sword.
On the one hand, it made people understand how magnificent prints in these
media could be, whetting their appetite. But on the other, the
reproductions were so *authoritative* in their full page beauty, it
convinced many that the book must be equally authoritative, to the point
of making heads of photo departments (who knew as much as J. Schaefer
about the processes) order the book as text.
One reproduction in particular amused, exasperated me. It was a Fresson
print. Very beautiful, and in fact labelled Fresson, but that was all. No
hint anywhere of what a Fresson print might be, what it was made of, or
how, or when, or how to find or get one. "Fresson" in that caption was, as
far as I could tell, the only appearance of the word. But of course the
person flipping through the book at Barnes & Noble wouldn't know that.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST