Brett Weston Portfolio Series

[doughowk]

Just received from Lodima Press the San Francisco Portfolio of Brett Weston. The quality of the 10 print reproductions is outstanding. Having never seen a Brett Weston print in person, this will be a good substitute.

 

[mikewhi]

I just received mine, too. It is a very nice book and reproductions are very good. They are not even close to actual prints - I have some BW prints here at home and actual prints are far superior. I think the value of the books will be the reproduction of many rarely published prints - this volume contains many such images. They will have a nice collectible and historical value when the full set is complete. I hope Lodima can pull it off.

I believe the HB edition is sold out, but there are SB copies available for very reasonable prices.

One note, I see an image taken in San Francisco from virtually the same spot that I took it several years back, only I used a 4x10. The perspective is clearly the same and I recognize some of the buildings, but it has been built up a lot in the years.

-Mike

 

[c6h6o3]

They are not even close to actual prints - I have some BW prints here at home and actual prints are far superior.
-Mike

Which of Weston's prints do you have?

 

[jp80874]

and what is your street address?

 

[blaze-on]

And when will you be out of town next?

 

[Jeremy]

Does anyone know hot to get cherry 7-up and spittle out of a keyboard?

 

[c6h6o3]

Which of Weston's prints do you have?

I ask this because the Nick Nixon portfolio book I just received contains the finest photographic reproductions I've ever seen. Both my grandfather and father were in the graphic arts business, so I've been obsessive about print quality all my life.

I'm just wondering if any of your original Westons is reproduced in the Lodima portfolio book. If not, is your comparison a fair one? I've seen (and continue to see periodically) Brett Weston prints which literally make me gasp every time I see them, and I've seen some which leave me cold. Maybe the originals of the ones in the portfolio book are not as good as yours.

As luck would have it, the next photo exhibition at the National Gallery is The Brown Sisters by Nick Nixon. I'll take my book down there with me. I still have the same problem, though, since the book contains none of the Brown sister portraits. How to compare?

 

[mikewhi]

I ask this because the Nick Nixon portfolio book I just received contains the finest photographic reproductions I've ever seen. Both my grandfather and father were in the graphic arts business, so I've been obsessive about print quality all my life.

I'm just wondering if any of your original Westons is reproduced in the Lodima portfolio book. If not, is your comparison a fair one? I've seen (and continue to see periodically) Brett Weston prints which literally make me gasp every time I see them, and I've seen some which leave me cold. Maybe the originals of the ones in the portfolio book are not as good as yours.

As luck would have it, the next photo exhibition at the National Gallery is The Brown Sisters by Nick Nixon. I'll take my book down there with me. I still have the same problem, though, since the book contains none of the Brown sister portraits. How to compare?

The first portfolio book contains vintage print reproductions and I started buying his later work. I think th emost famous ones I have are Mendenhall Glacier (a vintage copy) and the street scene in Mexico, one of the very few he took with people in them. The rest are, I believe all abstracts except for one of Glenn Canyon. The book reproductions can't do them justice - the paper can't have the dame density range as silver gelatin paper.

Still, I do like the reproductions. The tones are softer than books put out by Photography West Graphics, which are very contrasty and brilliant by comparison. Interesting palette they chose.

You're the 2nd person to commend the Nixon book. I'll check it out.

-Mike

 

[Wayne]

I just received my copy of the SF portfolio, and am even more impressed than I knew I would be. I've seen a few of Edward's prints printed by Brett, but I've never seen any of his own prints in person. The photography is so good, I dont know if its inspiring or depressing.

 

[c6h6o3]

I just received my copy of the SF portfolio, and am even more impressed than I knew I would be. I've seen a few of Edward's prints printed by Brett, but I've never seen any of his own prints in person. The photography is so good, I dont know if its inspiring or depressing.

Look at the reproductions under an 8x loupe. What kind of screen did they use?

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I have a subsciption for the paper back edition and the San Francisco Portfolio is superb. The reproductions are 600-line screen quad tone and absolutely beautiful. Now, of course, they are not silver chloride contact prints bound into 1100 different books but what do you want? The reproductions are everything I had hoped they would be and a little more. I am eagerly awaiting the next volume. Thanks, Lodima, for offering a wonderful opportunity to own such lovely reprodutions of Brett's portfolios. doc

 

[Jim Chinn]

I just received mine today also. I was very pleased with the reproductions and quality. It is going to be a real treat when each new edition arrives.

 

[Jorge]

Mike Whiting: "The book reproductions can't do them justice - the paper can't have the same density range as silver gelatin paper."

Well, that's not so. Silver gelatin prints have a density range of around 2.1, maybe 2.2. The printer of our books routinely gets a density range of over 3.0.

The reproductions in San Francisco are on the soft side because Brett's prints from the 30s were that way. His later prints are more contrasty--and our books from the portfolios made from those prints will also be more contrasty. It is easy to make reproductions "snappy" and contrasty. it is difficult to keep them smooth and graceful with fidelity to the originals.

Well, this is not so Michael. Most if not all reproduction materials (yes including silver and azo) have at most an exposure scale (to which a density range of a negative can be fit) of 5 stops of 2.1 density units.

In your book I took a reflection reading of the picture of the black woman in a diner and on the parts that were pure black the max reading was 2.05 with 0 being the paper white.

BY the same vein, Paul Capnigro's book had a max black with a density of 2.02

I really, really doubt you have found a paper and inks for printing that can give a Dmax (reflection) of 3.0. Maybe when Mike comes down he can bring his book and we can take some density readings....

 

[jmdavis]

Mike W.

The reproductions in the San Francisco portfolio are the best I've seen of Weston's work in any published book. Try comparing the them to those in "Voyage of the Eye" or "Master Photographer," or "A Personal Selection." There is no comparison. The process used by Lodima for these books produces the most detailed, delicate and balanced reproductions I have seen.

I spent the early to mid 90's in publishing and printing. I used stochastic and other methods to overcome the limitations of screening in offset printing. The 600 line screen Quadtones beat any other method that I know for faithful reproduction.

Brett Weston is one of my favorite photographers and I am quite glad that Lodima is undertaking the Portfolio Series.

Mike Davis

 

[Jorge]

Jorge: the book whose densities you are reading was done in 1992 and is printed in standard 300-line screen duotone. Though the reproductions are very fine, and were made by Gardner lithograph, who printed Ansel Adams's books and who prints John Sexton's books, and who was/is acknowledged to be the best printer in the United States, they are not even close to the reproductions in all of our current books. Not even close. Painful for me to say that, because I think Dave Gardner is a wonderful human being and he does do very, very fine printing.

Michael, while there is a difference between 300 and 600 line screen (the dots are more closely "packaged") the physical characteristics of paper and inks are such that I find it highly doubtful you are getting a Dmax on the books of 3.0.

I could be wrong but more densely packaged dots does not make the ink blacker, it only gives the appearance of blacker tones. Like I said, Mike is planning to come visit next year, I will ask him to bring one of his books so I can take a reading.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Jorge,

Bring your densitometer to Toronto. You can measure the densities of our books there.

 

[Jorge]

Jorge,

Bring your densitometer to Toronto. You can measure the densities of our books there.

I am sure there is a densitomer available in Toronto, we will see...

 

[lenswork]

I may have something to add to discussion of print densities and reproduction quality.

The most important factor of all in discussing reflection density readings of photographic prints or reproductions has not been mentioned here -- with which ruler are you measuring? For example, if I measure with an inches ruler and you measure with a metric ruler, we will likely get different numbers, correct? This is even more true when measuring reflection densities.

We discovered this in printing LensWork. In our office, we use X-Rite Model 400 densitometers which are greyscale only. In addition, all of our densitometers use the ORTHO Response 1.7mm lens, the standard for measuring greyscale tonalities. Since they are all the same and we regularly calibrate, we get exactly the same readings from each when we measure the same print area or tone. On the other hand, our printer (Hemlock in Vancouver, BC) uses the X-Rite 530 SpectroDensitometer which is a full color spectrum densitometer. Their readings are consistently higher than ours. Different device, different scale, different results.

For example, when I measured maximum black at the press check of LensWork #60, my densitometer read 2.12 for the sheet off the press. Their densitometer read 2.75. They use their numbers to calibrate their press, but I use my numbers to compare to original prints or measure books back in the office. I know my numbers are always about 0.78 of theirs. This is entirely due to the different ways the densitometers read since both of our tools are in "perfect calibration" for the model number they are. As long as we each know our tools and use them consistently, there is no confusion.

Also, there is a significant "dry down" factor. The same target area I measured off the press at 2.12 now measures 1.98 some 60 days later. It takes about 72 hours for the ink to settle down to its final density and then it becomes stable.

So, when Michael says his printer "routinely gets blacks of a density over 3.0," I would first ask when and with what instrument. I would not question his integrity, but I might ask for clarification about his measurements.

I am fortunate to own a copy of Michael's book Tuscany: Wandering the Back Roads Volume II -- one of his 600-line screen quadtone books printed by Salto. I just did some measurements with my X-Rite 400 (which was calibrated last week for the press check of LensWork #61) and the blackest black I find anywhere in his book measures 2.12. By comparison, the blackest black I measure anywhere in LensWork #60 (printed duotone by Hemlock) is 2.09. My hat is off to him -- his densities are terrific, of that there is no doubt. I would be disappointed if his $100 book printed on a #1 paper were not achieving better results than our $10 magazine printed on a #2 paper. My only criticism might be that I'd have expected a bit more difference, but that would be quibbling.

As another comparison, the blackest black as measured in the book Orchestrating Icons by Huntington Witherill which we published in August of 2000 at Premier Press in Portland is 1.97. This book was printed in 300-line screen duotone plus a skeleton black bump.

Here are a few others: Chris Burkett's book Intimations of Paradise has maximum black of 1.97; the blackest black I have ever measured in any book is 2.21 in a 4-color + skeleton black book of Japanese ukiyo-e prints; Linda Butler's latest book Yangzte Remembered (printed by Hemlock and awarded the 2004 Benjamin Franklin award for best printed book of the year -- the most prestigious of all printing awards, the equivalent of an Oscar) has a maximum density of 2.14.

Having said all this, I should add that my favorite book of all time as far as printing goes, is Paul Caponigro's The Wise Silence which has a maximum density of 1.25 -- that's right 1.25 -- and you will not find more sensual, luscious book reproductions than these, IMHO.

Finally, the highest density I have ever recorded was on a LensWork Special Editions reproduction of one of Oliver Gagliani's images in which we measured a density of 2.36 after heavy selenium toning on Ilford Multigrade IV. More typically, we would routinely achieve densities in the 2.05 to 2.15 range (after toning) on both Ilford and Forte Warm Tone. You can see why I have said for some time now that the difference between gelatin silver and finely printed offset images is becoming less and less measurable.

I hope this helps clarify some of the issues in this discussion.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

 

[Jorge]

I may have something to add to discussion of print densities and reproduction quality.

The most important factor of all in discussing reflection density readings of photographic prints or reproductions has not been mentioned here -- with which ruler are you measuring? For example, if I measure with an inches ruler and you measure with a metric ruler, we will likely get different numbers, correct? This is even more true when measuring reflection densities.

We discovered this in printing LensWork. In our office, we use X-Rite Model 400 densitometers which are greyscale only. In addition, all of our densitometers use the ORTHO Response 1.7mm lens, the standard for measuring greyscale tonalities. Since they are all the same and we regularly calibrate, we get exactly the same readings from each when we measure the same print area or tone. On the other hand, our printer (Hemlock in Vancouver, BC) uses the X-Rite 530 SpectroDensitometer which is a full color spectrum densitometer. Their readings are consistently higher than ours. Different device, different scale, different results.

For example, when I measured maximum black at the press check of LensWork #60, my densitometer read 2.12 for the sheet off the press. Their densitometer read 2.75. They use their numbers to calibrate their press, but I use my numbers to compare to original prints or measure books back in the office. I know my numbers are always about 0.78 of theirs. This is entirely due to the different ways the densitometers read since both of our tools are in "perfect calibration" for the model number they are. As long as we each know our tools and use them consistently, there is no confusion.

Also, there is a significant "dry down" factor. The same target area I measured off the press at 2.12 now measures 1.98 some 60 days later. It takes about 72 hours for the ink to settle down to its final density and then it becomes stable.

So, when Michael says his printer "routinely gets blacks of a density over 3.0," I would first ask when and with what instrument. I would not question his integrity, but I might ask for clarification about his measurements.

I am fortunate to own a copy of Michael's book Tuscany: Wandering the Back Roads Volume II -- one of his 600-line screen quadtone books printed by Salto. I just did some measurements with my X-Rite 400 (which was calibrated last week for the press check of LensWork #61) and the blackest black I find anywhere in his book measures 2.12. By comparison, the blackest black I measure anywhere in LensWork #60 (printed duotone by Hemlock) is 2.09. My hat is off to him -- his densities are terrific, of that there is no doubt. I would be disappointed if his $100 book printed on a #1 paper were not achieving better results than our $10 magazine printed on a #2 paper. My only criticism might be that I'd have expected a bit more difference, but that would be quibbling.

As another comparison, the blackest black as measured in the book Orchestrating Icons by Huntington Witherill which we published in August of 2000 at Premier Press in Portland is 1.97. This book was printed in 300-line screen duotone plus a skeleton black bump.

Here are a few others: Chris Burkett's book Intimations of Paradise has maximum black of 1.97; the blackest black I have ever measured in any book is 2.21 in a 4-color + skeleton black book of Japanese ukiyo-e prints; Linda Butler's latest book Yangzte Remembered (printed by Hemlock and awarded the 2004 Benjamin Franklin award for best printed book of the year -- the most prestigious of all printing awards, the equivalent of an Oscar) has a maximum density of 2.14.

Having said all this, I should add that my favorite book of all time as far as printing goes, is Paul Caponigro's The Wise Silence which has a maximum density of 1.25 -- that's right 1.25 -- and you will not find more sensual, luscious book reproductions than these, IMHO.

Finally, the highest density I have ever recorded was on a LensWork Special Editions reproduction of one of Oliver Gagliani's images in which we measured a density of 2.36 after heavy selenium toning on Ilford Multigrade IV. More typically, we would routinely achieve densities in the 2.05 to 2.15 range (after toning) on both Ilford and Forte Warm Tone. You can see why I have said for some time now that the difference between gelatin silver and finely printed offset images is becoming less and less measurable.

I hope this helps clarify some of the issues in this discussion.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

This pretty much falls in line with my experience. Your measurements show an exposure scale of 5 stops from white to black give or take 0.03 density units which can be attributed to sampling error.

BTW, I am not questioning his "integrity" I am questioning his statement that his books have a Dmax (reflection) of 3.0. As a pt/pd I am aware I dont need Dmax of 3.0 to make a print look good and that it is more important to have a good tonal relationship than the deepest blacks ever created.

OTOH, if one is going to compare print density one should use a densitometer that is used to measure print densities, not percent dot gain etc, etc. I use a Heiland TRD 2 which has been very reliable for years and I have yet to see anything that has a Dmax of 3.0, silver or paper.

 

[mikewhi]

<snip>
Having said all this, I should add that my favorite book of all time as far as printing goes, is Paul Caponigro's The Wise Silence which has a maximum density of 1.25 -- that's right 1.25 -- and you will not find more sensual, luscious book reproductions than these, IMHO.<snip>

I agree. I feel this book is the finest one in my collection. I bought it many years ago and it has held up over time against all other printing processes. I have a few original prints from some of the reproductions and of course the book does not match the original prints, but the reproductions have a quality of their own that makes them very beauitful. Some may be even better than the original prints, not in tonal range but in their inhereht beauty as an image.

-Mike

 

[Sean]

fyi- this thread has been moderated to keep it on topic and remove some disagreements which I feel are better handled off-line. Thanks, Sean

 

[lee]

Jorge,

one reason to use 600 line screening over 300 line screening is the ablility to make the tonal changes smoother and not just to make the density or max black darker. The more dots you can put down in a small area the better reproductions will look. The printing press cannot see gray so the size of the dots controls the grays. Without dots you just get white or black.

lee\c

 

[mikewhi]

This thread has been re-instated in a censored and 'cleansed' format. The vast majority of posts that are of the greatest interest have been deleted. This is blatant censorship and Sean has no business deciding what we should read or not read. MAS posted an interesting explanation of the decision making process he went thru to dilute the so-called 'limited edition', why can't we read that post and subsequent responses? Because Sean thinks they are 'off topic'(!!) and should be handled in PM's? Nonsense, that part of the discussion is the most interesting and most useful to all on APUG. The thread is now reduced to a discussion of reproduction techniques - a far cry from what it formerly was.

Sean, this absurd, cowardly and heavy-handed censorship. You should be ashamed of yourself.

-Mike

 

[laz]

<sigh> Mike, give it a rest please.

 

[mark]

Maybe this deserves another thread but hell this is the thread that got me thiking.

Why is it neccessary to achieve blacks of such a high reflective density when creating reproductions. Black is black to the human eye unless different levels of black are placed right next to each other for comparison. Wouldn't the goal be to make all of the blacks consistent before killing ones self to get the blackest of blackness? Okay, you want the image to be as close to the original as possible, that is great but if a person does not have the original to compare it to what's the point. Just wondering.