Digital BW, The Print

Hi Mark-

Yeah...it's a real pip, isn't it? When BW publisher first made the 
statement on the policy, I got all crazy and quit my subscription. I 
have to tell you, Henry wrote me several emails discussing his views 
and won me back...I resubscribed. He feels that the role of the 
silver based printer is getting squeezed out, especially in the "new 
photographer" market place, and although he sees progress for what it 
is, he loves silver prints and wants to dedicate his publication to 
them exclusively. It may sound like antagonism toward digital, but 
after my dialog with him, I think all of his decisions are based on a 
positive affinity for silver not anything anti-digital (of course we 
may not all be willing to make that distinction <g>).

I agree with you and have a lot of trouble understanding why there 
would be such distinctions...are their publications dedicated to only 
platinum printing? Or to sepia toned prints? Or to non-resin coated 
prints? What about the photographer who captures on film, scans to 
make adjustments and prints to a neg so he can make a "silver" print? 
What is that???

I shoot all digital now...sold and donated to charity all the 
darkroom and film equipment. But many in the forum are shooting view 
camera negatives and printing with inksets. If I printed my digital 
image capture to a negative and had it printed in a lab, would that 
be more "traditional" than the 4x5 negative printed with an inkjet?

Time will tell.

In the meantime, I agree that it's a worthwhile magazine and should 
be valued and I hope it survives...and also LensWork...wish it were 
monthly, too.

Cheers,

Tom O'Connell

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> It's a continuing source of hearty chuckles to pick up B/W 
> Magazine from time to time. I love to watch the subtle ways that 
> they continue to bash digital technology with one hand, and 
> somehow manage to accept advertising dollars from companies 
> that use digital techniques, with the other hand.
> 
> * Page 22: Funny ad from some photographer's group in Long 
> Island that have "dedicated themselves to preservation and 
> furthering of classical BW photography", blah blah blah. 
> 
> Then in the next paragraph they brag how their members' work 
> will be digitally archived via CD, DVD, and the Internet.
> 
> I wrote them a very serious tongue-in-cheek letter suggesting 
> that they all sell their computers and only correspond via manual 
> typewriters and USMail.
> 
> * Page 7: Publisher again makes note of their continued 
> defiance of digital photography. Even though they've featured 
> photographers who use digital, this came from a prior promise 
> before their philosophical shift. 
> 
> * Page 65: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from a company called Ataraxia Studio, which 
> claims to produce long lasting digital prints with pigments.
> 
> * Page 69: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for A&I Lab in Los Angeles, who mentions their 
> Iris and LightJet printing services.
> 
> * Page 142: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for Camera West store, which mentions their 
> stock of digital cameras.
> 
> *Page 144: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from PhotoVillage.com, featuring wide range of 
> film scanners, scanning services, and Piezo services.
> 
> -----------
> 
> You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're gonna take a stand, 
> take a stand; but with both your mouth AND your pocketbook.
> 
> Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the 
very 
> best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's 
> motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology. 
> Can't we all just get along?
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/
> 
> (cross-post)