From: monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson)
Subject: Re: 8x10, Christopher Burkett, light sources
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:58:11 GMT

In article <45d403Cma9ib00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> bjs@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:
>
>This weekend in a gallery in Carmel I saw some of the most amazing photographs 
>that I've ever seen.  The artist's name was Christopher Burkett.  The 
>photographs were nature images printed on 20x24 paper, in color.  Most were of 
>the genre in which incredibly fine colored detail is used to capture rather
>mundane scenes and render them exquisitely lovely.  Ack.  I can't really
>describe them.  Hopeless.  
>
>But what interested me was the medium used.  Although they were behind glass
>I was able to ascertain, by looking at light glancing across them, that they
>were done on glossy (polyester) Cibachrome.  This was confirmed by the gallery
>owner.  But the masking and printing used were so masterful that they 
>displayed none of the dreadful muddy black shadows and overly dark highlights 
>that I usually associate with prints from less experienced printers.  (I and,
>apparently, many others find it difficult to print Cibachrome and attain
>the color saturation that I want without having the overall result look
>too dark, even when I mask the shadows correctly.)  Color intensity compared
>very favorably with dye transfer and sharpness was far better than I've
>seen from dye transfer, although I'll admit that the largest original I've
>seen reproduced through dye transfer was 4x5.
>
>I also deduced almost at once that he had to be be using at least 8x10 format.
>The gallery owner affirmed this, also.  The sharpness of the images was 
>astonishing.   In fact I'm somewhat irritated in that his 20x24's would be
>approximately the same magnification that I use to make 11x14's from my 4x5
>negatives and transparencies, yet they look considerably sharper.
>
  (stuff about buying 8x10 enlarger equipment deleted)

  I had an opportunity to see Chris Burkett's work one to two years
  ago at a meeting of the Portland Photographer's Forum.
  I think Chris had just finished making (most of) his portfolio at that
  time. The prints were only matted - I didn't have to look through glass. ;-)
  Some images grabbed me, others were blah, I thought.
  But Barry is right, the printing was superb, and rendering of detail 
  unparalleled by smaller format. Burkett has become quite skilled in
  making printing masks to control extremes of contrast.

  When U-develop in Portland decided they were no longer going to support
  cibachrome processing, Burkett bought their processor - presumably
  well below the price of a new system. Thus, he encounters little
  competition to his type of work.

  I asked Burkett how he transported 8x10 equipment to the photo sites.
  He said that he just worked off the back of his car. "If you can't
  drive to it, it isn't worth photographing" is what he told the
  photo group. From my car, I never see the beautiful things he has
  in his photographs. Sigh.

  BTW, Barry, how much was the gallery asking for a Burkett print?
  When I saw them, he was asking $500 without the frame.

  Never mind the upcoming layoffs, Barry. Go ahead, buy an 8x10
  system. You should be able to get started with used equipment for
  under a thousand. And I'll bet that you already own a lens or two
  that can cover 8x10. Of course, film holders will cost nearly $50
  each - and they won't be nice, compact mido's. But after shopping
  for enlargers, you may want to consider buying a 20x24 camera
  and just sticking to contact prints. :-)