From: Dave Rose (cactuscowboy@attbi.com)
Date: 03/13/03-05:06:09 PM Z
After re-reading Stuart Melvin's article in the July/August 2001 issue of
View Camera magazine, I don't understand why it's considered "new ground
work". His gum printing procedure is about as straightforward and
'traditional' as any I've ever seen. Gum over platinum is hardly a novel
idea. It was done many, many years ago. Edward Steichen's "The Flatiron",
1905, is a good example of an early gum over platinum.
Am I unaware of radical new discoveries in gum or combination gum/platinum
printing that Melvin has made since 2001?
My comments are in no way intended to diminish or dismiss Mr. Melvin's work.
Based on the reproductions in View Camera, he's clearly producing some
exciting and beautiful work. I just don't see how his printing procedure is
new or different enough to warrant consideration of a new name.
Best regards,
Dave Rose
Big Wonderful Wyoming
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: The Holy Grail
(snip)
"I find it exciting that people like you Pete, are developing new processes.
Yours is really a "gum" based process but sufficiently different enough to
have a new name. The new ground work Melvin is doing is also phenomenal and
though it is traditional "gum" in the basics, it too may deserve a new
name."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:25 PM Z CST