Re: Only fifty photogs working with platinotype/palladiotype!?

From: Tom Ferguson ^lt;tomf2468@pipeline.com>
Date: 02/01/04-10:01:54 AM Z
Message-id: <F4B27524-54CF-11D8-B701-000502D77DA6@pipeline.com>

I think Judy has it "right". Perhaps a bit sloppy writing, "perhaps" a
stretching of the truth for self promotion, but hardly anything to get
upset about!

How many living "large format" photographers using platinum and
specializing in portraiture can you name? Now add the possible/arguable
variables of "large format" to a platinum printer being 8x10 or larger
and the term "working" meaning "making a living". I would guess the
number is then below 10.

Mapplethorpe didn't do his own prints (excluding his early polaroids),
and did the majority of his shooting with a "blad", so he wouldn't
count even if he had survived. I've always "assumed" the large platinum
prints were from enlarged medium format negs.

I would guess the number of us doing platinum printing on a regular
basis is in the thousands. That is a very good thing, or supplies would
be very expensive (more than they are now) and hard to find. But, admit
it, the vast majority of platinum is used for still lifes (most of mine
is) or "rocks and trees".

What is wrong with a artist doing some verbose self promotion? We
shouldn't have an argument with Gary's site, he is promoting something
we all love :-)

On Saturday, January 31, 2004, at 10:12 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

> SNIP>
>
> What Gary Auerbach claims is NOT that less than 50 photographers in the
> world are working in the MEDIUM of PLATINUM (which is of course
> ungrammatical: He should have said "fewer than.") His statement is
> actually ambiguous, but what he's probably claiming is that fewer than
> 50
> are working in HIS medium, which he says is "large format portraiture."
>
> Of course we do not know how large is large in this claim, and as we
> already see, he's a sloppy writer (although not necessarily a sloppy
> printer). But let's say he means large as would be large in, say,
> Polaroid. That could be 20 by 24. Or even 16 by 20... I suppose there
> are people who do 16 by 20 platinum portraits, tho I don't know of any
> living (I recall Robert Mapplethorpe, tho he didn't do the prints
> himself
> ... Would he count?)
>
> <SNIP>

> --------------
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
Received on Sun Feb 1 10:06:40 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:07 AM Z CST