Digital BW, The Print

Methinks it's you who are doing the kidding and mainly yourself is the one 
being kidded, kiddo'.

There is noway whatsoever that you have seen any printed work from your 
stated list that in anyway could possibly indicate what these individuals 
prints looked like at first viewing.

Do not try and pretend that no visiblew fading affected the visual 
impression because I just do not believe it.

I attended an exhibition of Julia Margret Cameron's prints last year at the 
National Portrait Gallery and to say the least they were very variable.

The main interest in her protraits was her subject matter. All either were, 
or were about to become, famous in their own fields and therefore the 
intrest was more related to how these now well known faces actually looked 
in the late 19th century.

These were no more than records of particular individuals taken using 
emulsions coated just before exposure with no idea of  emulsion 
characteristics  and little if any control of lighting. very hit and miss 
but intresting simply as a record of work by an early female photographer.

I have a book here richly illustrated with the work of a not at all famous 
American female photographer around the same period. Intresting as a record 
of American rural life within that period. Technical qualitywise? very 
variable.

Arty - do me a favour will you. It was almost certain that a "by guess and 
by god" technique was applied to all these images.

The interest was and still is historical and absolutly nothing more.

Now then, next week I will be a'visiting that self same National Portrait 
gallery in order to view the work of one Cornel Lucas - there one will be 
able to observe all the technical benefits that were available to the 
professional photographer in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

All silver and dye prints no doubt and still looking good. Produced using 
modern film stock inside some gread mid format cameras and top rank lenses, 
enabling the photographer considerable control over exposure, lighting, 
final tone reproduction and excellent print permanence.

You can stick your 19th centry hero's right up your arse. Give me the post 
1930' and upwards photographer every time. They had the technology that was 
mallable, the equipment to match and therefore the true representation of 
their ideas was both possible and achievable, and of course they generally 
were achieved.

Now here's something that will cause ructions. There is little doubt that 
Ansel Adams print quality made from the 40's onwards were recognisably 
better than those he produce before those years and all as a direct result 
of technoligical  developments.

That's it boy's -  another bubble burst, sorry about the pain but there we 
are.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] 19th century silver prints




That is a joke. Either you have seriously got to be kidding or you
haven't seen much of the truely great 19th century printmaking. I
have. Such as entire portfolios by William Henry Jackson, Carlton
Watkins, Edweard Muybridge, Timothy O Sulliavan, and Julia Cameron
from the very beginnings, not to mention Francis Frith, Frederick
Evans,etc,etc,. 

---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

I know one thing that is absolutely for certain. Carlton Watkins
albumen prints or Frederick Evans platinum prints can both kick your
ass any day of the week even after 125 years . And if they did fade
slightly then they would have done even better than that! As for Julia
Cameron, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but she could kick your
ass as well without even trying. As for Ansel, I'm bored (for 25
years) they all look the same after seeing the first 5. Let him rest
in peace.