Digital BW, The Print

Just a few comments.

Paul's earlier rational of pricing, i.e., platinum, silver, inkjet, 
etc. is founded in logic of economics.  That has little bearing in 
reality of an art market once underway.  An individuals work varies 
in price, as is mentioned in the B&W mag., based on characteristics 
of that artists standard for quality and output, occasionally medium 
used and the buying audience of the time.  Work long enough and it 
will vary by era as well. 

What 'we' think of as an ideal set of tones for, say in a silver 
print, are the prejudices of our cultural acclimation at the time of 
technical personal development.  The history of photography, short as 
it is, has had opposing camps at multiple times.  Two sets of the 
strongest were Stieglitz & F. Holland Day (and others), A. Adams & W. 
Mortensen.   To be simplistic, we have inherited the philosophical 
purpose of photographic art from Stieglitz, the purity of 
presentation from E. Weston & the tonal spread from A. Adams.

Photography has dealt with the dilemma that it is a simple mechanical 
method (1880-1900's), strived to look like other mediums in art, 
sought to make use of it's mechanical purity to present marvels of 
modern design (1920-1940's), documented, commented or provided 
introspective viewpoints.  This does not even factor in the impacts 
of the ID in Chicago, advertising or the commercial viability of 
photographic materials at different points.

I write this only to remind myself that the image itself & my desire 
to convey, is what dictates the parameters of the objects qualities.  
The market will accept it at a price unrelated to my efforts.  Make 
an image the way you want to, because you want to.

I am not an "I'm ok, you're ok" or recovery group guy (not to 
disparage).  Instead encourage people to be familiar with the history 
of their interest; it has likely been addressed similarly before.  
Our current situation with the acceptance of inkjet certainly has.

Cleavis