One interesting effect of the print exchanges is that people get to see what other people's work is like and how they present it, and that tends to raise standards.
Sometimes, I think, it's meant holding up the Traveling Portfolio, because some member or other has felt that their work didn't measure up and wanted to produce a better print than they've ever made before sending it on. On the one hand that inconveniences the whole group, because the portfolio is delayed, but on the other hand, if the person who hangs on to the portfolio for two months becomes a better printer for it, well, isn't that part of the purpose of the whole thing?
So to those who won't participate, because they feel that their work is superior to the work they will receive in return, I would say--
It is always a challenge to improve upon one's own work, and the print exchanges are an opportunity to do so, regardless of the prints one receives in exchange.
If your work really is that superior, then show some generosity of spirit by sharing your work as Les McLean, Joe Lipka, Clay Harmon, and many other fine printers have done here in the exchanges, and maybe others will learn something from your experience.
I obviously vote 'no'. While I do agree that an excellent presentation will add to an excellent print, you still need an excellent print first. Someone put it best when they said "...you cannot polish a turd.". This idea has had too many requirements based upon everything BUT the print itself. To me, my idea of an 'elitist' print exchange would go something like this:
#1 - The print, that when you look at all your others, you honestly feel is best
#2 - An image that you learned something as you were creating it
#3 - An image, that once you were done, you dug it back out a couple of times just to look at it
#4 - An image that you believe will makes others feel as you do when you view it
Basically...An image of yours that you feel is above all of the other images you have made. After all, it IS about the photo....Right ? Now, I am not saying that you all don't do this now - for I don't know. All I am saying, is that if this were my parade, that is how I would do it.
I also will voted no but think this statement should be looked at. I have recieved many prints that would be worthy of hanging if the printerhad taked the time to spot them. Others look like they've been crammed into a bag in rage. Just my 2 cents.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsatterlee
"Rage" is usually in the post. "In haste" is more descriptive of my contributions...
And I'm a lousy spotter. So lousy that I prefer to making the print over again - and again and again and again until the few remaining dust specs are unobtrusive enough to be overlooked without examination with a 10x loupe...
Spotting hint: use a 1000w lamp in the room. Improves MTF of the eye.
Spotting hint: really fine brushes don't make fine points.
Spotting hint: Use a bigger film. A dust spot the size of a grain of dust is acceptable, enlared to the size of a pea it's not...
Spotting question: Does anyone know of a spotting ink/paint/pigment that matches the reflectivity of a FB print? Well-spotted prints are ugly in the wrong lighting...
Spotting hint--Well selected, well trained Richeson Miniature Series brushes make fine points.
Spotting Hint 1 - Turn the print upside down, stops you looking at the picture and concentrate on the tones.
Spotting Hint 2 - Don't over-do it. Creep up to invisability. Knocking the 'white' off a spot is usually enough to hide it from a resonable viewing distance (i.e. hand held). Over spotted 'donuts' stand out like the proverbial dogs bollocks!
Spot Tone. Works for me and many others for decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ole