Digital BW, The Print

On 2/27/02 9:36 AM, "Alessandro Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@...>
wrote:

> Maybe they think they'll lose a few readers by dropping digital, but not as
> many as they would by keeping it. If collectors are as conservative as it
> seems, I bet a few of them already complained about digital stuff taking too
> much room on the magazine.

No offense, but I would find this hard to believe.

B&W is one of the *few* photo magazines that *doesn't* emphasize the
technical attributes (camera/film type, production process, etc.).  Their
editorial content tends to talk about the artistic process, history,
collectability, mood, aesthetics, intent, etc.

They do describe the medium/process, but usually as small captions (along
with the editioning & contact information).  In the last year or so, they've
often captioned an image as "giclee", "carbon pigment ink", "pigmented
inkjet", etc. -- in fact, as several folks have pointed out, there's
"giclee" in the very issue we've been discussing.

This is why I find their decision to be even stranger than the other pro/con
digital dialogues in other photo magazines like Camera Arts.  If B&W had
never brought up the issue in the first place via the "letters" column of
the last 3 or 4 issues, I doubt that even the most ardently anti-digital
people (even collectors) would find enough to complain about.

By the way, the LensWork magazine has been mentioned here several times.
Although they don't profess a pro- or anti-digital stance, they publish
stunning (if sometimes conservative) work, and have excellent essays and
interviews.  If any of you are cancelling your B&W subscription, you might
want to consider putting that money into LensWork's enterprise instead
(www.lenswork.com).

-- 
John Labovitz
johnl@...
www.johnlabovitz.com