From   Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:49:07 -0800
remote from fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:49:07 -0800
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 35392593; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:49:05 -0800
Received: from 199.185.220.220 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003032120513390655 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:51:33 GMT
Received: from computer ([66.222.145.239]) by priv-edtnes61.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id 
          for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:48:59 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 





Subject: Re: Papers 'n' Stuff / Larry
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:47:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

Carl Cook at clcook{at}olywa.net wrote:

> I want someone to see the image/content, not the process of it got there,
> hens a search for papers that bring images out to a semblance of what I
> see in my head when I created it in the first place -- just a fancy way
> of what we said in the darkroom of getting the best print possible. Dull
> paper=dull image, no matter how striking the content.  That's why I am so
> impressed with the papers listed below. They really do bring the image
> out to what I saw in my head and labored like a maniac to get to look
> good on the monitor.

Worth noting, we see quite differently. It may be simplistic, but one might
generalize that your pictures are as much about shadows as mine are about
light. I am sure that extends in every way to the materials we choose and
the methods we use to get there. Not in anyway a value judgement, but I
simple could not imagine anyone mistaking one for the other.

> Concur on the Luminos review. I have tried their sampler and was very
> unhappy with the results, although their matte finish paper looked OK, and
> I used it for a while for everyday stuff.  Prints made with this paper had
> almost zero longevity, a view shared by a couple of reviews I have read.
>
> As someone who can be a quality freak when it comes to my prints, I simply
> want the best I can do for my  exhibit and sale prints, not to mention
> anything intended for publication. Personally, I prefer matte or
> semi-gloss, also known as lustre or E Surface (Kodak bw papers). I have
> never liked glossy prints, but that's just a personal thing. Epson's
> semi-gloss is a nice paper, the digital equivalent to the papers named
> here, but expensive.

Were I to pursue printmaking for sale, I would do a complete re-evaluation.
Certainly the 1280 would have a 2200 jammed in someplace around it and there
are a whole 'nuther range of papers designed for pigments that I have had
not contact with whatever.

All my life, I have "worked for the Man", paid my dues and put off a lot of
personal projects for "when the time is right". A short while back, I
noticed I was knowing fewer and fewer friends and relatives my own age or
older. Brings it home that the time is NOT right when one is cooling on the
slab.

I take on a few commercial projects, but spend most of my time as my own
client. Most prints are for me - or to share with special friends. My
monitor is about the size of an 11 x 14 enlargement, and I have come to
appreciate it as a presentation medium as well.

larry!
ICQ 76620504
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5