From: Sandy King (sanking@CLEMSON.EDU)
Date: 10/09/03-11:03:43 AM Z
Judy,
Actually many American pictorialists made carbon prints of the
fuzzy-wuzzy type using negatives made with soft focus lenses and by
means of other softening methods. And the purists lumped it with gum,
oil, bromoil, etc. as one of the hated control processes.
But what is the SG you mention below?
Sandy
>On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Sandy King wrote:
>
>> > Did you mean to say that the new Gum Bichromate plugin is like gum in
>> that it can't resolve fine detail either?
>
>Actually, Sandy you are confused here...
>
>Robert Demachy, making a sharp distinction between "softness" in a print
>and "detail", points out that gum can get all detail in the negative but
>the character of the print is "softer" than SG. (The reason could be the
>dot gain in gum, which thickens it up.)
>
>Tho of course that was exactly the charm of gum for the period -- Demachy
>et al HATED all that sharp literal stuff... (Too bad about carbon being so
>sharp -- have you tried fuzzing up the negative?)
>
>J.
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST