Digital BW, The Print

You're absolutely right, John, these carbon ink prints are stunning. I never thought I'd make prints comparable to or better than silver prints. We have Paul to thank for that, as well as others like Clayton Jones.

I do care about the digital files, however. They allow us to make more prints when needed. I'd like to see a way of treating them as simply and archivally as we do negatives. Maybe I'm hoping for too much!

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:
>
> The most archival photograph will be the print that still looks good in 100 years. Who really cares about the digital file. The value is in the print. 
> 
> I was digitizing a lot of photographs for our art museum recently. What a pleasure to see original Weston, Adams, Callahan and Minor White prints. What struck me in seeing many of the "greats" prints, is how much the quality of prints varied! I would have to say today's digital prints have a much better overall quality. Nothing comparable to your carbon prints Paul! ;-)
> 
> John Nollendorfs 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@> wrote:
> > "John" <jrnolly@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, film is mostly more permanent, but more precisely "universal". You don't need any special equipment to look at the image. ...
> > 
> > 
> > I'm going to make a set of prints on 13 x 19 as the "archival" storage medium for the museum project I seem to always be working on.  I looked at the various options for printing and, while glossy had the best signal to noise ratio, a cotton paper was chosen for permanence.
> > 
> > 
> > I wonder how the collectors look at all of this.  Will our really good carbon on cotton prints have more value if there is NO forever backup?
> > 
> > Sometimes an artist's work goes up  
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>