Digital BW, The Print

Hi Alfie,

> 1) Does anyone here use digital cameras and output into piezography
> (preferably Cone's inks I'm more interested in...)?

Many use it, but other methods are just as good, and far less expensive. (especially
inks).  The VM and FS MIS inks along with Paul Roark's curves will
easily equal piezography quality.  So you have a lot of inks to choose
from. There must be at least a dozen different black and white inksets
out there now, and hundreds of papers!

> 2) Which outfits do you shoot with personally? I'm very close to
> thinking about using some Holga shots and doing piezography on toy
> cameras??? A joke perhaps but worthwhile shot...

 Canon D60's or Nikon D 100 are best for reasonably priced pro digital
cameras, and the quality of the prints they make is outstanding. Not
into the Holga stuff, never seen a holga picture I liked. I guess it's
just not my cup of tea.

> 3) What perked your interested in digital black and white printing?

Quality is better than the darkroom now. MUCH better selection of papers!	
> 
> 4) What made you switch from silver halide based processes to digital?

Quality is better than the darkroom. MUCH better selection of papers. 

> 5) Why do die-hard traditionalists object to digital black and white
> prints? Tonality range? Shadow detail blockage? etc. etc.?

Shadow detail is better than traditional photography, so is highlight detail.
Most gallerys don't accept them YET because of archival/permanence
problems that have been associated with inkjet printing. That's slowly
changing now, and there are several systems that offer permanence to
100+ years. Traditionalists are usually people who just don't want to
change. They like what they're doing and want to stay there.  I was that
way with autofocus cameras until I actually tried one.  Change is
difficult for some people. 

Besides, what you can do in photoshop is unbelieveable, and down right FUN!!!

Jerry

http://www.westernechoes.com

> Thanks for your help and I look forward to working and learning (more
> of that) from the intelligent folks here who are more experienced
> than I am!
>