Digital BW, The Print

> We must kill the "push the button and another one pops out" 
> mentality completely. With a stake right through the heart.

There is nothing new here.  One of the struggles photography went
through in getting accepted as a legitimate art form was the fact that
a photographer could make more than one copy of his work, while a
painter could do only one.  I see this as just another chapter in the
same story.

To me the biggest obstacle to acceptance is our own attitudes.  If I
am not willing to put an equal price on a carbon ink print as on an
emulsion print of the same size then I am exposing my own attitude
that it is inferior in some way.    Until we can do that we won't
make it.

I am more and more coming to see our carbon ink prints as a legitimate
art form distinctly different from "photographs" (photo meaning a
light-based process).  During the summer I went to our church office
for something and found a beautiful old etching in a frame, with acid
spots, dirty glass, etc.  I brought it home, replaced the crummy
cardboard backing with some acid free cotton matt board and cleaned
the glass.  The etching was of a pen and ink drawing and was really
beautiful, a real jewel.  I felt I'd found a real treasure and
returned it to the office in much better shape.

Etchings and wood/stone block prints are ink-based copies of original
art works from which many copies may be made, as are photogravures and
silk screen prints, yet they all enjoy "art" status.  Why not carbon
ink prints from inkjet printers?

I think this is the approach we should be taking.  We are not making
photographs, but are making carbon ink prints of our photographic
negatives.  Printmaking is a long established art form, and I think
this is the path we should take.  We are now photographers _and_
printmakers.  I believe if we insist on this distinction, and give
them equal status with our emulsion prints as reflected in our prices,
then the question of whether they are "equal" to photographs becomes
moot.  

By entering the argument we are giving it legitimacy.  Better to say
to someone, "What on earth are you talking about?  These aren't
photographs, they are carbon ink prints.  They are very similar to
etchings, but are made with an inkjet printer instead of a mechanical
press".  This will deflect the question into another area.

And when we speak to the public about it we should say something like,
"Yes, an entirely new art form is emerging from this technology. 
Photographers are having to learn a whole new set of demanding skills
in order to become good printmakers.  It takes many hours of
painstaking work to bring out the best of a photograph and do it
justice."  This is true.  I generally spend more hours working on a
scan in PS that I did on the first print of a neg in the darkroom.

A few months ago I showed some of my black-only carbon ink prints to a
man retired from the graphic arts printing industry.  He's not a
photographer, but knows digital imagery and printing inside out.  He
was astounded at the quality, and know what he said?  "Are you sure
these are photographs?  They look like etchings".


Regards, - cj