Digital BW, The Print

Alan wrote:

>... I've started using on my "medium" description:
>"Unaltered photographs."

>Does that seem the correct way to assure that it is clear
>that nothing in the picture differs from the original scene?

I also try to do this.  I call my prints, first and foremost, just "Black
and white photographs."

It's only in the description of my work that I go further to describe the
printing process and to emphasize that I consider my images to be "straight"
photos -- not digital composites.  I generally only use the digital
analogues to dodging, burning, etc.  True, the digital unsharp-masking,
local contrast controls, etc., are so much easier and better that they are
almost qualitatively different.  However, the image is, in my view, true to
the lens-formed image (on the negative in my case).

I had thought that the "straight" photography description was one that had
been used in the past to convey this concept.  Admittedly, the "straight v.
gay" use of the term may have become so engrained in the culture now that
"straight" may not be the best way to convey what I want to.

(On another point, I think "Piezograph" or any use of the "piezo" term
really sounds bad.  I have always thought Cone ripped-off Epson on this term
anyway.  Last I heard, Epson holds the patents for the piezo printing heads
that most of us use.  At any rate, who would want to promote a proprietary
name?  I don't want to be attached to any company -- Cone's or Epson.  If
Canon makes a better (non-piezo) printer, I'll use it.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com