RE: [Leica] Giclee and gelatine (was SNAPS etc.)

["Tim Atherton" <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

I remember seeing some stuff about it on the Epson site - don't know if it's
still there?

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of george day
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 1:29 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Giclee and gelatine (was SNAPS etc.)
>
>
> Very interesting.  I'll be in Santa Monica in a few days, so I'll check it
> out.  Any info on what he was shooting with?
>
> NO ARCHIVE
>
> > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Tim
> > Atherton
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:03 AM
> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Giclee and gelatine (was SNAPS etc.)
> >
> >
> > check out the NY Times article (you may need to subscribe)
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/25/arts/25VICK.html?searchpv=site03
> >
> > Tim A
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of henry
> > > Sent: March 28, 2001 11:16 AM
> > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > > Subject: RE: [Leica] Giclee and gelatine (was SNAPS etc.)
> > >
> > >
> > > >> so I'm really grumbling in my
> > > >> single-malt,
> > > >
> > > >> Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Ha ha ha - "single-malt" now there's a nicely pretentious
> > term. Don't you
> > > >just mean whisky! Why on earth would you need to define the
> > > actual process
> > > >with such elitist terminology...? What on earth does it
> matter to your
> > > >average whisky drinker? Oh, and of course, it sure drives the
> > > pricing up ;-)
> > > >
> > > >Tim A
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I've thought a bit more about what it is that bothers me about this
> > > naming thing.
> > >
> > > Partly its that somehow I believe that detailed technical
> explanation is
> > > beyond the interest/ability of most viewers/buyers to
> > understand. By that
> > > I mean that they won't really "get it" but will simply categorize the
> > > method as "good" or "bad" based on what they last read in some
> > collecting
> > > magazine or on "common knowledge" of whats good or bad or what their
> > > friend "who knows about this" told them.
> > >
> > > An example would be the country of origin of wines - if a wine is from
> > > Country A its good if its from Country B its bad (or somehow not as
> > > good). A decision is reached without tasting!
> > >
> > > What makes it hurt is that much like a wine producer who is
> relegated to
> > > a lesser class without tasting, a photograph can be relegated in a
> > > similar fashion. If its on RC its not as good as fiber. If
> its color its
> > > bad. If its inkjet its automatic crap. I know those things
> are not true.
> > > A lot of the world does not and the result is not tasting
> (deciding for
> > > oneself) but buying (or not) based on what some art/wine expert writes
> > > about whats good or bad. The photograph is not judged on its
> merits but
> > > on some less than factual opinion of its worth based on technique or
> > > production.
> > >
> > > I think Slobodan wrote something about this recently on the
> LUG, to the
> > > effect of
> > > "this is a technically wonderful print, officially archival and
> > never you
> > >  mind about content"
> > >
> > > This is what I despise.
> > >
> > > The established art industry wants to maintain their turf by
> poo-pooing
> > > anything new that comes along. "We don't do this so its bad" "Not
> > > invented here"
> > >
> > > And, of course there's the thinking its a shortcut if you
> scan the film
> > > and print it using a computer - simple push button art - any
> fool can do
> > > it!
> > >
> > > Openness to digital prints is growing, but slowly. I'm seeing some in
> > > traditional galleries along side wet prints. They can both be "art" -
> > > good art.
> > >
> > > Henry
> > >
> >
> >
>