« Flying With a Camera (Part II) | Main | My Nightmare »

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Comments

"the light brightened and the the array of spider webs in the tree branches glowed." You can see spiderwebs in the print? I bet these look amazing.

[I seem to see one distinct spiderweb in the tree. There are a few more lighter areas that could be spiderwebs, but I'm not sure. It's possible my eyes are not good enough. --Mike]

If you go to Carl's website, there is a slightly larger JPG available by clicking on the smaller inline version of each print. I see the white areas that Mike is talking about. They have straight edges and some texture that make them look like spider webs to me.

I stared at Carl's "Pike Theatre" print alongside a framer a few years back for quite a while, until we decided to leave considerable white space outside the black emulsion brushstrokes. I bet the "Fog" print will also look good that way. For "Dixie," I like Carl's suggestion. The concept of putting a 7 x 17 negative into the holder with the edges filed a bit wider as in the 35 mm days is priceless.

scott

Photoshop says the image is 6.906x17. The paper is 10x19.5. There are multiple cobwebs, but only a couple of them seen square-on, and I sure can't see them without my reading glasses.

Why use a digital negative at all? I would be more inclined to buy these if they were not soiled by the use of digital. Technique and provenance matters, and personally, I find anything digital just of lesser intrinsic value/craft/whatever... It seems like a crutch or cop-out somehow.

Jim, digital negatives now can be superior to analog internegs. Only a fool, like I was in 2010 for our first Pt/Pd offer, would commit to making a large number of platinum prints from an irreplaceable original in-camera negative. The process is just too physical. It's not like putting a negative in the enlarger and leaving it there while you make an endless number of prints.

The comments to this entry are closed.