Digital BW, The Print

Wait a minute.  I read Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" as stating that, in 
his - the editor/publisher's - opinion, black and white's "connection 
with the past" merits the policy that B&W "will not widen our 
editorial scope to include Digital photography."  Rasmussen 
continues: "This is not a judgement reflecting the worth of 
practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity - it's 
impossible to please both sides in the same forum."  

I see nothing in the article (p. 7 of the April 2002 issue) that says 
that digital lacks the tradition, heritage, and other qualities that 
collectors are looking for.  Rasmussen is clear - in his opinion, 
digital is based more on technology and conventional photography is 
based on craftsmanship.  The magazine's concentration on conventional 
photography is "a decision in consideration of constancy."

Regardless of the possibly misguided basis for his opinion, he's 
entitled to it.  He does say that "we may from time to time 
reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of developments 
in the Digital arena."  Thus, there is nothing in the article that 
suggests that it will not have any articles or feature any discussion 
of digital prints.  

Face it folks, despite the raves of enlightened practioners, as of 
February 27, 2002, there is still quite a bit of skepticism - and not 
without reason - about digital photography.  The leading - and, as 
far as I know, only - magazine devoted to black and white photography 
(and a damn fine publication) is not so much dictating standards but 
is rather reflecting popular opinion.

Besides posting here - which is a bit like preaching to the choir - 
perhaps a letter to the editor would be more effective in getting 
Rasmussen's ear and the issue before the collecting public.  That 
will ensure that, at least for the July 2002 issue, there will be a 
discussion - not a monologue - on the merits of collecting digital 
photography. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" 
<steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> Good points Paul.  
> 
> I especially think the archival nature of partially toned (and 
possibly those improperly processed) prints is a key issue....but not 
for them.  
> 
> Steadman
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Paul Roark 
>   To: DigitalB&WPrint 
>   Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:01 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
> 
> 
>   Steadman Uhlich wrote:
> 
>   > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital 
prints do
>   not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other 
qualities he thinks
>   important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" 
and not in
>   a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have 
any
>   articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.
> 
>   It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant 
letters to the
>   magazine that will get them into more of a corner.
> 
>   For example, I'd want to know if silver prints that went through 
a digital
>   step are covered.  For example, what of the Lens Work type images.
> 
>   Next, I'd want to know how collectors or the magazine can tell if 
there was
>   a digital step if the process.  Can they really police the 
policy?  Do they
>   have affidavits from all their advertisers and the photographers 
and others
>   whose photos are published?
> 
>   I wonder what the other attributes of digital are that are of 
concern?
>   Maybe they could be specific.
> 
>   If longevity and light fastness is one factor, how do they know 
that the
>   photos that are featured and advertised are properly processed?  
If they are
>   not the carbon pigments on good paper is probably more archival.
> 
>   In fact, if the partial toning that we silver printers were 
doing, it turns
>   out that the images are not really that archival.  I think I'll 
be able to
>   measure the yellowing of  partially-toned silver prints.  It may 
be low, but
>   I hope to match it -- in fact non-warming paper (no brighteners) 
may do it
>   already.
> 
>   We must confess that the easy of making many copies is a problem 
for any
>   machine print.  Collectors want an object that cannot be made in 
quantity.
>   How one raises prices, all else being equal, is to limit output.  
From an
>   economics perspective, the control that a monopolist has is 
limiting output.
>   It is only from that action that prices rise.  So, out put 
limitations is a
>   key to collectible value.  But, how many prints to A. 
Adams "make?"  I think
>   over 80,000, but this is hearsay.
> 
>   So, there are issues we can work with here.  If the magazines' 
policy
>   becomes self-defeating, they'll change.
> 
>   Paul
>   http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - Include your full name with your message.
>   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep them short.
>   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
or "flames."
>   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]