Digital BW, The Print

I agree that it is easy to get too caught up with the process but 
disagree with everything else you say here.

I became an expert in the darkroom and could make a finished print 
quicker, using less paper, back in the day than I can with digital. All 
the factors with the current digital processes are really a huge hassle 
and I am surprised that as many people are into it as there are.

Unless there is some secret source I don't know about, Photo Rag is 
twice the cost of darkroom paper. Which I find strange since darkroom 
paper is coated with a precious metal!

I get the feeling that you feel we should settle for what is available 
now (ie no fiber glossy look), even though you believe it will be 
possible in the future.  Well I think the future is now and there 
should be a way to get it with todays technology. I love the look of 
piezo on matte paper, don't get me wrong, but there is a void that 
should have been filled by now. (yes, I know, the digital pace has made 
me impatient)   : )

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt <
tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> I think sometimes people get more concerned with the process than they 
> do the product. If you have to have prints that look like fiber based 
> prints printed on Seagull paper, developed with Dektol, toned for two 
> minutes in seleninum toner, then you probably should use Seagull, 
> develop it in Dektol, etc.
> 
> This medium is not fb darkroom paper and  I suspect it will be quite 
> awhile before any of the glossy papers out there will even come close to 
> giving the same visual impression. I'm not a big fan of matte papers but 
> that seems to be the best combination with good quadtone inks to get 
> good images and some are quite nice. Not only that, even the more 
> expensive papers, e.g. photo rag, are only 1/2 the cost of Seagull 
> darkroom paper. In the darkroom you can't easily compose, "burn" or 
> "dodge" (however you choose to do it) on the computer getting feedback 
> on your screen prior to going to paper. In the darkroom the paper is the 
> feedback and it takes quite a while an quite a bit of expensive paper to 
> get a good print from a virgin negative.
> 
> When push comes to shove, isn't it about the image? Weston could have 
> smeared emulsion on totilet paper and made a better image than 99.9% of 
> all the photographers that have ever or ever will live.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Julian Thomas wrote: