Re: And how sharp I am was/Re: Temperaprint & Gum

From: Dave Rose ^lt;>
Date: 01/31/04-09:43:53 AM Z
Message-id: <002901c3e811$07cfe8e0$c6cc9045@Dave>

I continually try improve my technique and craftsmanship, to achieve the
sharpest possible results. Precise rendering of fine detail is one of the
qualities unique to photography. Why not pursue that quality to the fullest
and best advantage? Archival quality is important. I've had C prints fade
after a year or two hanging on the wall, due to occasional exposure to

I'm not some kind of 'F64' zealot. I've made my share of 'soft' photos that
have worked. In my opinion, a photographer should have enough mastery and
control of the medium to produce sharp, well printed and archival work - if
desired. I've certainly seen many less-skilled photographers produce fuzzy
and poorly printed work because that was the limit of their ability.

Your opinion that photographers who are striving to produce sharp and
archival prints are driven by insecurity is laughable. I suggest that some
of the sloppy/fuzzy photographers who can't produce high quality work are
driven by their own insecurities to denigrate and attack the work of those
who can.

Best regards from Big Wonderful Wyoming,
Dave Rose

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <>

> I don't demand that you roll your prints in the mud... but make the point
> that many artists have other values... And IMO there's more concern with
> archival and sharp in photography than warranted, due, again IMO, to
> insecurity.
> J.
Received on Sat Jan 31 09:41:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/02/04-09:50:00 AM Z CST