> [snip]
>
> >Last point: Dmax.
> >
> >I guess it is possible to make a violin sound like a viola. You could
> >probably breed Dobermin Pincers to look like German Shepherds. But why
> >bother? Platinum by nature is an exquisite midtone process. Those who are
> >lucky enough to be able to see a show of great Pt work from the classic
> >period (1890 - 1920) will see that virtually none of the prints will have
> >anything near a true white or a true black. Clarence White, Steiglitz.
> >Steichen, Kasebier, Coburn, Day, you name them, there are virtually never
> >blacks or whites just grays. You have to see it to believe it. A.A. has
>
> With the above names it may be true, but a few years ago, I saw a show up
> here in Canada, that was circulated by some outfit sponsored by Kodak. The
> early, ca 1920? platinotypes were superb, with rich D-Max and therefore
> clean whites (ok., without a rich D-max the same whites may not have been
> all that bright:-)
>
> I am kicking myself now, not only to save you folks some effort... but
> because I didn't take better notes when looking at that show. What I do
> remember distinctly is that the prints looked very different from what is
> produced today. Also, none of them looked like the wishy-washy stuff Dick
> is referring to above, and yes I have seen plenty of it myself. I only met
> Ansel Adams once (ca 1976) and did ask him if he had ever used
> platinotypes. He said no. If all he saw was the stuff Dick is referring to,
> I can see why.
>
> Luis Nadeau
Wishy washy? Aren't we being a little harsh. I'm as much a modernist as
the next guy, been through the whole bit -- 8x10, zone system, etc. Wehn
I was studying photography at UCLA in the early 70's it was popular to
bash the Pictorialists - those wishy washy folks! Trying to make mere
photos look like real art. There has been a considerable amount of
scholarly revisionism concerning the Pictorialists in the last two
decades. The Getty has had a two shows in the last year focusing on this
period. I think on closer examination the Pictiralists deserve more
respect than previously accorded. (I am straying too far.)
The point I'm trying to make is that I feel that Adams is on target when
one considering silver bromide paper. I don't feel that this is true,
however for platinum. Even if one can achieve spectacular Dmax's it just,
doesn't in my mind, feel quite like the natural thing. I wish to stress
that I am referring to the tonal values of this work and not in any way
championing a return to imitating the subjects, attitudes, or content of
the Pictorialists.
I don't think of the aforementioned printers as being wishy washy in any
way. Maybe a little more subtle than much work of today. Perhaps in this
age we've lost the abiltity to appreciate work of this nature.
Despite my comments, a point well taken Luis.
Dick Sullivan
Bostick & Sullivan