From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 07/29/03-06:19:06 AM Z
> 2. I loved Chris's mot: "ya do gum bad, ya get grit; ya do gum right, ya
> get fine detail" but like Judy, I don't agree with it completely. That
> is, I agree with it for my own work, but not as a general rule. The
> wonderful thing about gum is that it allows such a range of expression.
> For some peoples' work, grit is just the ticket; the work would lose
> something if printed any other way. There's room for everyone in this
> tent.
>
> Katharine Thayer
Maybe I should clarify--wish I could post an image to this list, but I have
a wonderful example of a poorly done gum print (that I keep in my portfolio)
that is over pigmented, very grainy, very low contrast. In the pictorial
days gum was criticized for being "fuzzy" or some other adjective, and if
well done, a fuzzy print is fine by me. I suppose I should have used the
word "grain" instead of Dick's "grit". There is good grain and bad grain,
and I do think most can tell the difference between a gritty print that
works and one that doesn't. I also have a gritty picture of a Geisha in
there that does work. It is nice and contrasty, sharp and grainy. Also, it
is not a cluttered image, so the eye can grasp larger forms, which it cannot
in my unsuccessful grit image.
I love grain. TriX grain is beautiful and creamy AND sharp. Then
there's TMax 3200. To me (oh, I can hear it now, but I'm gonna say it
anyway) it is the difference between a Neopan 1600 negative, or Delta 3200,
and a TMAX 3200 negative. In MY hands (get that--MY) TMAX 3200 is ugly
grain. So what I am saying in a roundabout way is if the tonality is there
in a gum, and the size of your focal point is large enough to be graspable
within that grit, sure grit works.
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 08/07/03-03:34:51 PM Z CST