PDA

View Full Version : Best kind of enlargement for an exhibition?



John Kasaian
9-Apr-2013, 09:12
I've been called to assemble an exhibition of historic photographs and I'm puzzled about whether to display the orginals (which vary in format and often in fragile condition) or to display more uniform sized enlargements, and if I go the second route, since nearly all the negatives have been lost, if it would be better to make internegatives and print conventionally, or go digital----and if digital, what sort of scanning/printing would prodive the best quality enlargements and how large can I go without the pixels "coming apart" whn viewed up close like in the Cold Stone Creamery/Williams-Sonoma/Eddie Bauer displays? As a practical consideration I'm thinking 16x20 would be adequate for the needs of the exhibit. Or perhaps 20x24? As you can probably tell, I don't really know what I'm doing here!
There are local labs that I know do this sort of work, but I'd like some idea of what sort of processes there are these days.
There is a chance that the exhibit may travel to a few locations which makes duplicating the prints more attractive.

These are B&W prints from old photo albums from the 'teens and twentys.

Thanks!

bob carnie
9-Apr-2013, 09:17
John

I am completely biased in my views here, but if these are silver gelatin prints as originals, I would consider high rez scans and then doing Lambda fibre prints and toned uniformily and sized. this will answer the fragility issue of the originals and as well you will have silver gelatin prints that exhibit the same archival properties as the originals and if done right the same look.

Bob

Kirk Gittings
9-Apr-2013, 09:20
I print exhibition photographs for a pretty well known civil rights photographer. In the past (for the Smithsonian) they were all direct silver enlargements from 35mm. Some where along the way she lost some of the negatives and now I am printing some of them from my scanned original prints. These were always very difficult to print as she never was a great technician who paid much attention to exposure and development. I actually find that by scanning the original prints on a 750 at a high res (prints are 11x14 so I stitch scans) I can virtually match the originals and sometimes surpass them on a semi-gloss inkjet paper.

John Kasaian
9-Apr-2013, 09:32
Thanks guys!

ROL
9-Apr-2013, 10:17
Pop Laval by any chance? ;)

I'm an unrepentant silver guy myself, but at this point (not that anyone has asked) I wouldn't hesitate scanning the original photos at as high a resolution as possible, and consider having it done by a professional lab if resources allow. Printing digitally on a good paper to 16x20 seems more than adequate for most showings. As audience, I have struggled many a time to "appreciate" a photographer through original works too small to be viewed in dimly lit venues. I've seen larger D prints from 35mm negatives extremely well done (Glen Denny's Yosemite Camp 4), but the spirit of the photographer, if no longer available to assist in the reproduction process, seems to me to be more faithfully represented, albeit in contemporary form, by precision scanning of original photos and as faithful a representation as possible, in any print form.

Jim Galli
9-Apr-2013, 10:23
If the photographer is famous, ie. Dorothea Lange, Imogen Cunningham, et al, I would want to look at the originals. If the photographer isn't really important but the scenes are, (like some one finding my negs of Tonopah in 50 years) then, I'd scan originals and print whatever works well digitally.

I'm convinced 99.8% of viewers want to look at pitchers and could care less how they are made.

Drew Wiley
9-Apr-2013, 11:12
I've done plenty of copy/restoration onto darkroom papers. It's pretty amazing what can be done, and at least one can simulate the look of a silver prints onto a new silver print pretty convincingly, which is exactly what people were willing to pay for. That formula wouldn't work so well for an old tintype or something like that. Nowadays everyone is doing this kind
of thing digitally, which Fauxtoshop is so well engineered for. I once restored a group shot in an old print so damaged by fire that nobody's face in it was recognizable. Out came all the infrared copystand techniques, and sure enough, I good a clean
good neg finally, and a very nice looking print ... all except one face which was totally destroyed. I simply faked that in on
the 8x10 neg - literally painted it on with pencil and dye, and nobdody knew the difference. Lenses weren't all that sharp
back then, and nobody knew exactly what they real person looked like anyway. So faux didn't begin with Fauxtoshop. It's
been around a long time...

DrTang
9-Apr-2013, 11:19
I'm convinced 99.8% of viewers want to look at pitchers and could care less how they are made.


I'm convinced 85% of the people at any opening are there to eat cheese squares on toothpicks, drink free wine out of plastic glasses and see who else showed up... if they happen see some photos - all the better

Drew Wiley
9-Apr-2013, 11:25
Not always. I can remember a few openings where a bunch of billionaires' wives showed up. And at that point in my life I didn't even know what a good wine tasted like. I knew about cheese (I'm a direct descendent of the founders of the Tillamook cheese empire). Then some smelly hippy-looking guy in a dirty serape kept coming into the gallery and the director
kept trying to get him to leave. Turns out he had a Rolls Royce parked around the corner and about twenty grand in wadded
bills in his pocket. So he did walk out with several prints and no cheese at all!

DannL
9-Apr-2013, 12:46
I can't speak for the digital methods, having banished myself from those realms, but several years ago I was surprised when I discovered how easy it was to make an enlargement from a small vintage photo. The original circa 1880's photograph about 3"x4" and I enlarged it to 16"x20" almost effortlessly. To this day it still hangs over my desk.

I made a close-up exposure of the original with a 4x5 camera. The photograph was lit front one side with a single 60 watt incandescent bulb. After developement I enlarged the 4x5 negative onto 16x20 Ilford MULTIGRADE IV RC glossy paper. It did take two sheets of film to get the correct exposure, and I did have to use a bit of paper from a sheet for test strips. The only oddball item that I used was a Jobo drum that could accommodated a 16x20 sheet, but I am sure I could have used trays just as easily.

I don't know how that could possibly help in the OP's situation, but when the negative is no longer extant it may be enough to encourage someone to take the traditional path to enlarging. It worked nicely for this silver gelatin type photograph.

paulr
9-Apr-2013, 13:29
Could you explain the fragility issues? Are you worried about damaging the work while mounting / framing, or are you worried about it somehow getting damaged while on the wall?

The work should be well protected when hung, unless the circumstances are unusual. Making repro prints sounds like a ton of work.

IanG
9-Apr-2013, 14:07
One comment I'd make is a lot of thought is needed.

I've seen two large exhibitions of Kertesz prints. One at the Barbican in London was of original contemporary prints, small jewl like and exquisite, the other was modern prints made from the same negative - excellent prints and uniform (as much as possble) in sixe but they lacked the original spark and intimate feel. That's the dilemna here.

Ian

Kirk Gittings
9-Apr-2013, 14:47
Actually, as far as I can tell, that is not the dilemma here. We are not talking about superb prints by a master here but historical photographs where the information contained is paramount.

IanG
9-Apr-2013, 15:15
Actually, as far as I can tell, that is not the dilemma here. We are not talking about superb prints by a master here but historical photographs where the information contained is paramount.

The size and ambiance of the original images is still important though. I used to do work for a museum/art gallery in the 1970's and keeping as close to the original was important, that's easier now as you can scan and more cacurately reproduce all but the parer texture.

Your right thouigh that it does depend on the final context.

Ian

Dan Henderson
9-Apr-2013, 16:01
I would rather view original photographs as printed by, or with the participation of, the photographer. Whether he/she is famous, or name recognized, or relatively unknown to me, is of little significance. The value of looking at, as you describe them, "historic" photographs, would be greatly diminished (for me) by looking at copies, whether hi-rez scanned and lambda-printed as Bob suggests, or by any other method. Even if I cannot hold and feel the original print, I feel a connection to simply being in the presence of a print that was made by, or at least approved by, the photographer. If this exhibition is being professionally and properly curated any potential danger to original photographs should be adequately mitigated. As others here have, I have been in the presence of a print that was made by Ansel Adams, Yousef Karsh, and other masters of the medium (or at least approved by them). I can only describe this experience as transcendental. I'm sorry, but copies do not create transcendelism for this viewer. But I prefer ink on paper books to nooks, so what do I know?

BTW, I apologize in advance for the comma-strewn sentences. I am normally more parsimonious with them, but I am enjoying my first dinner of the spring on my patio with an excessive amount of red wine.

ROL
9-Apr-2013, 16:07
If full context is truly the issue, then hang the standard enlargement next to the the original, or if not the original, then an original sized replica. I can bet where most users eyes will be, most of the time, and it likely won't be on the original, unless the photographer is very well known and a skilled printer of equal renown. With few exceptions, fine art printing wasn't the point of most historical photography exhibitions I've seen, either by the photographer's intent or execution although occasionally I have been taken aback by the beauty of the prints and the acumen of the photographer/printer..

Drew Wiley
9-Apr-2013, 16:10
Sometimes the original photos are loaned and not available for actual display, or the cost of safely framing them is exhorbitant to the overall budget of the project, or one might want to clean them up visually per mold, cracks, fading, etc,
or simply enlarge them to make the content more obvious. Here our local park dept, as well a local historian & friend do an
awful lot of that kind of thing. Ctein across the Bay has done a quite a bit of this kind of thing for Ken Burn as well as
published a book on it. It's sorta fun work.

Randy Moe
9-Apr-2013, 16:42
Haven't we all done this with old family photos? I have restored as much old, family photos as possible. Mostly 1910 to the 60's. All are damaged. I scan what I can or copy stand what I can't scan. The one thing I do is I maintain original format and size. I then put the original under the new one, in a frame, in case someone, someday may have better technique or my prints degrade.

I like both Dan Henderson's and ROL's idea's.

Oversize copies are fairly obvious to most and I think a bad imitation of an image's original purpose. Sort of rewriting history.

Jac@stafford.net
9-Apr-2013, 18:06
I digitized 3,110 pictures and negatives from our local historical society to anticipate a show and publication which never happened due to some territorial, asshole librarians and wannabe curators.

As you can imagine, given that the sources range from 35mm to 8x10 and and many, many glass plates, the outcomes were vastly different. As it concerned a book outcome, there was no particular problem because the limited viewing distance properly leveled scale, however the issue of 'how to present' in a gallery was most difficult.

There are no ropes in this gallery to enforce viewing distance and I suggested we either put the images up as they would be in the book, or better to normalize all to fit within 11x14 or so size. Methinks the later is more comfortable to the audience.
.

Kirk Gittings
9-Apr-2013, 19:30
I have worked on numerous historic exhibits (dozens probably) in many different capacities from the Smithsonian to state and local preservation exhibits in NM, DC and Chicago. The need for the originals to be displayed is relative to the context, content and intent of the exhibit. Making an issue that its always better to just hang the originals is (for lack of a better term right now) silly. Its like me saying that I won't ever let anyone reproduce my images in books or magazines because I only want them to experience the originals. If I can find it later I will post an image of mine of a room that was reproduced life size in a museum exhibit so as one could feel like they were walking into it.

Here it is, a woodworkers "form wall" at the National Hispanic Cultural Center maybe 2-3 years ago. Size about 11x12 feet.

93014

This usage was totally contrary to my original intent of the image (B&W and maybe 16x16") but perfect for the intent of the exhibit that it ended up in.

DannL
9-Apr-2013, 20:16
Here's an example of mixing original prints with oversized images in the Santa Barbara showing of Brett's work. I can see where it adds a certain amount of impact.

http://www.brettwestonarchive.com/#s=0&mi=4&pt=1&pi=10000&p=2&a=1&at=0
Menu on right of page.

I saw the first showing in OKC twice and don't recall enlarged images being shown at that time. I'm sure each museum had a certain amount of freedom for the exhibit.

Randy Moe
9-Apr-2013, 20:47
Here is an example of a photographer, whose work is being shown too big. imho

http://www.chicagohs.org/planavisit/exhibitions/vivian-maiers-chicago

I bought the book, 'Vivian Maier Street Photographer", I am looking at the book right now. The images are 120 film square negs, enlarged to about 9x9 inches for the book pages. They look great that size. Most of her work was never printed.

The above exhibit is very close to me, yet I may not view it. I think I will not like the images over-blown, as the site says, 'Maier’s Chicago collection will be presented at larger than life scale vividly documenting Chicago neighborhoods and faces of the 1960s and 70s.' I think they made them 4 feet square. Way too big in my opinion.

Bigger is not always better.

IanG
10-Apr-2013, 01:32
The need for the originals to be displayed is relative to the context, content and intent of the exhibit. Making an issue that its always better to just hang the originals is (for lack of a better term right now) silly.

I can think of situations where it's infinitely better to show enlarged copies, particularly in spaces where the images are being shown as part of a display of social or local history rather than a pure art context.

Ian

MDR
10-Apr-2013, 04:27
They are from family albums so in my opinion they should be displayed at their original size, a photo album is a collection of photographs that have different sizes, but that's what makes them special one size only albums can get kind of boring different sizes not so much. If the originals are in bad condition I would reproduce them at their original size digital or analogue doesn't really matter size does. A photo album invites intimacy enlarging the photos would destroy that. A good example for using different sized photos in a show is Masao Yamamoto. If you use photos from the same album page you could arrange the photos in the exhibition the same way as in the album.

good luck
Dominik

Kirk Gittings
10-Apr-2013, 08:28
Here is an example of a photographer, whose work is being shown too big. imho

http://www.chicagohs.org/planavisit/exhibitions/vivian-maiers-chicago

I bought the book, 'Vivian Maier Street Photographer", I am looking at the book right now. The images are 120 film square negs, enlarged to about 9x9 inches for the book pages. They look great that size. Most of her work was never printed.

The above exhibit is very close to me, yet I may not view it. I think I will not like the images over-blown, as the site says, 'Maier’s Chicago collection will be presented at larger than life scale vividly documenting Chicago neighborhoods and faces of the 1960s and 70s.' I think they made them 4 feet square. Way too big in my opinion.

Bigger is not always better.

Why would you make that judgement about an exhibit you haven't seen based only upon seeing reproductions of her work in a book? Seriously?

I oftentimes have real issues with how a show is designed and curated but usually I make that decision after actually seeing it.

Drew Wiley
10-Apr-2013, 08:33
I wonder what Brett himself would have thought about someone else printing one of his images, esp to a whole different scale and different medium than he envisioned. I suppose this was just an "intro" eyecatcher to an otherwise authentic exhibition.... but still.....

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 08:50
Because, once seen, we never forget. I have seen many images, in my time, I regret seeing. The Internet is a prime example of getting just what we don't want, inadvertently. Photographic memories are not always a blessing.

Just because they did it, is not good enough for me. It is also a very expensive museum. $14 admission and $9 parking. I am on a tight budget, $23 for an exhibit I may not like, is too much. Even CTA will cost $6 RT, with plenty of evil walking. I'm a crip.

Have you seen it?

What is your opinion of the actual exhibit?

I don't think 6x6 film should ever be blown to 4 feet square. Especially street realism. imho, maybe...





Why would you make that judgement about an exhibit you haven't seen based only upon seeing reproductions of her work in a book? Seriously?

I oftentimes have real issues with how a show is designed and curated but usually I make that decision after actually seeing it.

Kirk Gittings
10-Apr-2013, 09:48
No I haven't seen it-I'm not a fan of her work, but I probably would go if I was already in the area just to see what all the hoopla is about. I've been wrong before about some photographers and a great presentation might sway me.

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 10:19
I am content with her book. The images are great for city dwellers that remember those days.

NOT ART, but images.


No I haven't seen it-I'm not a fan of her work, but I probably would go if I was already in the area just to see what all the hoopla is about. I've been wrong before about some photographers and a great presentation might sway me.

Drew Wiley
10-Apr-2013, 12:13
As I understand it, these were negatives found in an attic, and not prints at all, and due to their subject matter have been
made available for public viewing via modern printing. But I would think that printing them in some fashion analogous to
their actual vintage would have more charm. From what I've seen of these particular street images, they were very private glances of the surrounding society, and a more intimate form of presentation would better suit the mind or mood of the original photographer. Printing them big and brashy like something Avedon would have done seems like sacrilege. But big prints are the fad at the moment, and heaven forbid that any curator exercise any personal judgment rather than following
the herd!

Scott Davis
10-Apr-2013, 12:29
I'm of the opinion that when possible, original prints SHOULD be shown, especially in the context of an art exhibit. I am willing to make exceptions for rare and fragile originals that may be damaged from display (early 20th century Autochromes, for example), or as an example, the African-American Civil War museum here in DC has a very nicely curated exhibit where most of the images are (very high quality) reproductions because the museum does not have a large acquisitions budget to go out and purchase original period images, but can license copies. In the context of a history museum, the image content is usually the over-riding factor for inclusion in a display, so I don't get as much heartburn seeing images presented as copies (although I still WANT to see the original daguerreotype or tintype).

bob carnie
10-Apr-2013, 12:43
I am printing a series of Vivian Maiers images this week with the owner of the negatives.

One of my associates bough 35 Vivian Maier negatives from B Mailof on ebay before he realized what he was sitting on . Others have bought these original negatives as well. She has waited till now to start releasing some of them.

I love her Vivian Maiers work , I do not like the quality of printing of the book.


I am content with her book. The images are great for city dwellers that remember those days.

NOT ART, but images.

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 12:45
I agree. She was also extremely prolific, and any exhibit would better show the sheer volume with vintage sized enlargements. A smattering of huge prints in no way conveys a catalog the size of which Vivian produced.

Back, to the book which lists for $40, I think Amazon sold it for $25, which is what the exhibit costs to view, with parking. My book is a cherished possession I will have till death do us part, not an over-sized memory nightmare of glossy surfaces. The more I write about it the less I want to see the exhibit at any price.

The book is 4 pages of explanatory babble, plus cover blurbs, thankfully short and to the point. The rest is 133 pages of very nice images, one per page, 9X9"

I may just cut some images out of the book and frame them, with anti-glare glass. That darn glass is another pet peeve of mine.

Her book fits nicely beside Richard Bellia's book on musicians. I think most Art books are a fantastic bargain.



As I understand it, these were negatives found in an attic, and not prints at all, and due to their subject matter have been
made available for public viewing via modern printing. But I would think that printing them in some fashion analogous to
their actual vintage would have more charm. From what I've seen of these particular street images, they were very private glances of the surrounding society, and a more intimate form of presentation would better suit the mind or mood of the original photographer. Printing them big and brashy like something Avedon would have done seems like sacrilege. But big prints are the fad at the moment, and heaven forbid that any curator exercise any personal judgment rather than following
the herd!

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 12:47
I anxiously await your prints.



I am printing a series of Vivian Maiers images this week with the owner of the negatives.

One of my associates bough 35 Vivian Maier negatives from B Mailof on ebay before he realized what he was sitting on . Others have bought these original negatives as well. She has waited till now to start releasing some of them.

I love her Vivian Maiers work , I do not like the quality of printing of the book.

Kirk Gittings
10-Apr-2013, 13:50
I agree. She was also extremely prolific, and any exhibit would better show the sheer volume with vintage sized enlargements. A smattering of huge prints in no way conveys a catalog the size of which Vivian produced.

I recently saw a retrospective of Robert Adams work in Denver-hundreds and hundreds of prints. It was an exhibit that attempted to do what you suggest-represent his catalog. A four volume set of books accompanied the exhibit. In many ways such an exhibit is exhaustive and aimed at a pretty well informed audience/student of his work. That scale and depth is not always possible or even desirable for a given artist or a given venue.

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 14:00
Your point is?


I recently saw a retrospective of Robert Adams work in Denver-hundreds and hundreds of prints. It was an exhibit that attempted to do what you suggest-represent his catalog. A four volume set of books accompanied the exhibit. In many ways such an exhibit is exhaustive and aimed at a pretty well informed audience/student of his work. That scale and depth is not always possible or even desirable for a given artist or a given venue.

Kirk Gittings
10-Apr-2013, 14:03
What you wanted in that exhibit may not have been possible or desirable in that venue.

Drew Wiley
10-Apr-2013, 14:06
Well I did purchase all four volumes pertaining to a big Atget show which were very well reproduced and explained. In a case
like his, where most of the originals prints have been damaged by mold, and many of the original negatives cracked or peeling on the emulsion, some form of actual modern visual restoration is actually very helpful in understanding what he was
attempting to communicate. But a fine line gets drawn, because the reproductions in the books actually look better than his
own undamaged prints, which were pretty understated in the best of circumstances. But at least the tones of the old albumens came across convincinly in quad printing. Robert Adams, however, was a pretty subtle printer, and the books I've
personally seen couldn't convey that elusive atomospheric quality, and if they did, I sure couldn't afford a set! His work comes across as pretty bland when you're not confronted with the real deal. I'd hate to think what the web does to it!

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 14:29
What I want is not important. The venue, did what they wanted. I simply disagree.

I find museum prices too high in Chicago. I can get what I need from library books or online. The museums are pricing themselves out of the market. CPL, the Chicago Public Library, used to have free passes, no longer, they are only good if you have a minor accompany you. My daughter is 40. She's busy.

When I attended SAIC, I made sure I was in the Art Institute proper every day. Even if I just used it as a warm shortcut. Admission to students is free, as it should be. That old SAIC ID worked for many years after I graduated, in 2001. Thank goodness.
I would spend a lot more time in the wonderful Chicago museums, but it costs hundreds a year to have membership to just 3, MCA, ARTIC, Chicago Historical. I can no longer afford the luxury.

So, I buy books and complain.






What you wanted in that exhibit may not have been possible or desirable in that venue.

Kirk Gittings
10-Apr-2013, 14:45
I agree about the costs of museums (though as an SAIC instructor I can get into most for free-reciprocity), but I find books very pricey too. Personally with shelves of photo books that I rarely look at, I have largely quit buying them-preferring seeing the originals and savoring my memories of such.

Drew Wiley
10-Apr-2013, 15:50
That sounds like a great opportunity, Bob ... but how ya gonna get into her head, since she never printed any of these as a
representative example? It should be a fun excursion into "what if"...

brian mcweeney
10-Apr-2013, 15:54
If anybody is in the Dallas Fort Worth area consider seeing the Big Pictures exhibit at Amon Carter Museum. It touches on a lot of what is being discussed here.
http://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibitions/big-pictures

And at the same time you can see Marie Cosindas' exhibit of actual size color Polaroids from the 1960s.
http://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibitions/marie-cosindas-instant-color

bob carnie
10-Apr-2013, 16:08
You know a very good point Drew,

I have known about these negs for about four years , in fact we printed some from the get go.
I am going to look at the life time period that she shot in and hopefully see if I can see influences, I want to see if if there is some style that we think is appropriate.
Right now we are thinking of a person who did not make a lot of prints but was obsessed with documenting a city and that may give me some clues.

I am thinking a cold tone neutral paper like Ilford Gallere at this point, basically a cold tone silver gelatin print. The book that was printed kind of reminded me of Helmut Newton warm images and I do not think that this would be the style that is appropriate . Not to mention the dodge and burn was brutal and the sharpening absolutely destroyed the images.I have the book and am very dissapointed in the direction whoever took it .. absolutely rank crap IMO .

I am going to try a straight forward neutral style, with selenium tone and try not to over do the dodge and burn, think newspaper style.
I have been thinking about this for a few years and the owner is very much ** in love ** with Vivian's work and we are very concerned about making the best representation of the negative that are here.
It will take us a bit of time to come to a fit that the owner feels comfortable with and I think are great prints.

At this point I do not think someone has done justice, though I have not seen the prints at Greenburg Gallery which may be great , but the book really sucks.





That sounds like a great opportunity, Bob ... but how ya gonna get into her head, since she never printed any of these as a
representative example? It should be a fun excursion into "what if"...

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 16:13
Too bad they don't say how big these Big Pictures are. I could hook up the projector and look at faded imitations.

Now, I do like the size and quality of Marie Cosindas' images, They work well on a monitor and little is lost.




If anybody is in the Dallas Fort Worth area consider seeing the Big Pictures exhibit at Amon Carter Museum. It touches on a lot of what is being discussed here.
http://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibitions/big-pictures

And at the same time you can see Marie Cosindas' exhibit of actual size color Polaroids from the 1960s.
http://www.cartermuseum.org/exhibitions/marie-cosindas-instant-color

Randy Moe
10-Apr-2013, 16:25
Bob, I hope to see your prints, for they will be your prints, soon.

And hopefully shown in NYC and Chicago.

Good luck!




You know a very good point Drew,

I have known about these negs for about four years , in fact we printed some from the get go.
I am going to look at the life time period that she shot in and hopefully see if I can see influences, I want to see if if there is some style that we think is appropriate.
Right now we are thinking of a person who did not make a lot of prints but was obsessed with documenting a city and that may give me some clues.

I am thinking a cold tone neutral paper like Ilford Gallere at this point, basically a cold tone silver gelatin print. The book that was printed kind of reminded me of Helmut Newton warm images and I do not think that this would be the style that is appropriate . Not to mention the dodge and burn was brutal and the sharpening absolutely destroyed the images.I have the book and am very dissapointed in the direction whoever took it .. absolutely rank crap IMO .

I am going to try a straight forward neutral style, with selenium tone and try not to over do the dodge and burn, think newspaper style.
I have been thinking about this for a few years and the owner is very much ** in love ** with Vivian's work and we are very concerned about making the best representation of the negative that are here.
It will take us a bit of time to come to a fit that the owner feels comfortable with and I think are great prints.

At this point I do not think someone has done justice, though I have not seen the prints at Greenburg Gallery which may be great , but the book really sucks.

bob carnie
11-Apr-2013, 05:11
Not sure yet what plans are for the prints other than sale. Not sure what markets and whether they will be represented or not.


Bob, I hope to see your prints, for they will be your prints, soon.

And hopefully shown in NYC and Chicago.

Good luck!