Recently I made a print and my attention was on the tones in the sky... I burned too long and ended up with a darker sky on my print than I wanted, with that obvious "burned in" look. But another person pointed out that this same burning in increased the grain in the sky, and the coarse texture by contrast enhanced the smoother finer look of the water and foreground below it. He was right, and I hadn't seen it because I was too focused on the tone. I was blind to something that was quite obvious in the print right in my own hand. It makes me wonder what else I'm blind to!
As for lith printing, I am very curious about lith redevelopment because I've seen some beautiful results, including some amazing work by Tim Rudman at his website. The main thing that is holding me back from trying it is that I still have a lot to learn about regular printing first. I have in my imagination a particular kind of print that might look extraordinary with lith redevelopment, but it is more like an unachievable ideal or goal to strive for eventually....
I like trying new and different things, so I doubt I will wait to become a master printer before trying lith. There are not enough years left in my life to wait for perfection before experimenting!
What I don't think is a good idea, is to make a series of pictures about a certain technique, but to take a group of negatives that have pictures that tell a good story together, and then try to present them as well as we possibly can.
That is a nice way to think about things. Thank you!
Still trying to master normal prints...been doing it for 40 years...will get it soon.
This is an open forum for learning, isn't it? Only fifteen photos were shared in the apug gallery today. There are only two willing to be critiqued. I think it's safe to say that many people are intimidated by the small percentage of incredibly talented and equally intimidated by the large percentage of ranting egos. Apug should promote experimentation and learning of analog processes and those talented few should teach by example. Most of this is subjective. Also, what is perceived as ordinary today may evolve into something extraordinary. Wasn't there harsh opposition to impressionist paintings at first?Quote:
However I see so many images in the APUG gallery that are either generally crappy compositions, pedestrian subject matter, and/or poorly exposed but magically once they have been lith'd somehow they become "art"
Physician heal thyself.
I am not sure why the OP thinks he is so above it all.
A lith print can look interesting even if the underlying scene isn't particularly interesting.
A web image of a lith print - not so much.
In my time, I've seen a few originals of what are acknowledged to be great works of (visual) art.
None of them are anywhere near as powerful or effective when viewed on a computer screen.