Digital BW, The Print

At 9:42 PM -0700 7/26/03, Martin Wesley wrote, I think correctly:
>Contrast is the slope of the tonal curve not the number of tones, so there
>is no particular reason that BO printing should be more or less contrasty
>than any other method. Since BO printing has the same Dmin and Dmax over any
>image range the contrast should not be compressed by using this method.
>
>Your numbers would only have meaning if the ink was laid down without a
>dither pattern.
>
>I have several of Nick Hartmann's and Clayton Jones's prints and they do not
>suffer from being too contrasty. They both have put in a lot of time working
>with this method and it shows. It isn't so much what you use as how you use
>it.

But at 6:33 PM +0000 7/27/03, Peter Nelson wrote:
>[snip] if you have two pixels next to each other that are closer 
>together in value than 2% it [black-only printing] will either 
>render them with the same value (zero contrast) or it will render 
>them 2% different - (exaggerated contrast).    Since your eye won't 
>see ANY different in the former
>case it won't notice it (although if you look closely you'll see 
>loss of detail), but in the latter case it will see exaggerated 
>contrast, so that's what people will notice about the print.

However, I have four of Clayton's black-only prints, and they, like 
those Martin has, are not too contrasty. And beyond that, they're 
actually quite nice in general. So, in a very different way, are 
those of Nicholas Hartmann's (which however I've seen only on the 
web).

Not that I mind if Peter thinks otherwise. But I do think that work 
which goes against the conventional grain should be encouraged. 
Especially if it is as good as Clayton's or Nick Hartmann's. We all 
see a lot of good work, but how often do we see work which, in 
addition to being done well, shows us there's a whole different way 
of working well which we've been overlooking?

Sam