Have you made it over to the Hybrid Photo site yet? Information to get you started.Originally Posted by Robert Brummitt
http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/
Have you made it over to the Hybrid Photo site yet? Information to get you started.
http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/
"One of Ray's close friends has moved away from Azo too. I think his friend's work in Pt/Pd is more expressive. But that's just me. Oh, and I bought a print from Ray's friend too."
We're probably talking about the same photographer/friend and I would agree regarding the pt/pd is more expressive. There's magic in that pt/pd chemistry and Azo leaves me cold as well.
I'm planning to attend a Digital neg workshop and buy Dick Arnetz Platinum book and workshop.
Ray showed a small group of like-minded photographers a Pt/Pd print about a year ago. It was sharp and contrasty and looked simply wonderful.
After some amount of discussion Ray revealed that a friend of his from the Seattle area had created it from a digital interneg. I was blown away! The artist had taken the original image using a 4x5 view camera. With a scan and manipulation, he then created what looked to me to be an 11x14 inch digital print neg.
I nearly sold everything I had to start down the digital workflow path. But I pulled up short very quickly. I work with computers every day. So why would I want to do more of it when I went home? Besides, the traditional workflow is such a nice analog counterpoint to all this digital madness. I have actively made the decision to stick with in-camera produced negatives of various sizes.
However, after seeing Ray's friend's image I know what's possible using digital in some part of the workflow. Really amazing stuff.
I've got two Pt/Pd prints hanging on the wall here. one is from a (digitally) enlarged MF negative, the other form an in-camera LF negative.
Both are great prints, but there's no doubt in my mind which one is superior. (Thanks Jorge!)
[QUOTE=Christopher Perez;221064Stieglitz's comments are interesting and stand in contrast to comments made by Ed Weston on the topic.[/QUOTE]
They probably also stand in contrast to his own comments made at other times. Stieglitz changed his mind about almost everything, but rarely acknowledged doing so.
I also remember Weston being upset when his platinum papers were discontinued, but like everyone else, he adapted to the new materials, and his work seemed to follow.
Looking at Stieglitz, it's hard to imagine some of his earlier symbolist work being as convincing on silver paper, but it's equally hard to imagine his later new york modernist work (with the buildings and inky shadows) on platinum.
Robert, Chris - I assume you guys are talking about Patrick Kolb. Let's just say his name and give him the recognition that he is due. He does marvellous work.
Here's some of his work -
http://store01.prostores.com/servlet...3APatrick+Kolb
(BTW - I liked his silver prints as much as the Pt/Pd he's doing now.)
Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com
It's etiquette.
The book I was talking about earlier in this thread is Darkroom 2, Copyright 1978, Lustrum Press. The book includes Judy Dater, Frank Gohlke, Emmet Gowin, Charles Harbutt, Lisette Model, Hans Namuth, Doug Prince, Aaron Siskind, and Neal Slavin.
Cole Weston is one of the last featured darkroom artists. There-in he says ... Early in his career, Dad used platinum paper. As he matured as an artist, he grew to feel platinum was too "soft" for his work, and he began printing on silver papers. The early silver papers were also relatively "soft" compared to most of the ones today...
I can't find the passage I found most interesting, wherein he says that Ed Weston used a magnifying glass to burn in areas of his platinum prints as they were being exposed to the sun. If I can uncover it, I'll think about posting the exact quote here.
In any event, it's this very "softness" that gives such an interesting quality to Pt/Pd prints.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christo...sods/380857124
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks