Digital BW, The Print

Springboard? More like trying to catapult across a mine field, in 
this case> ;-)

At least part of the problem, IMO, is how people regard 
black-and-white photography in general. I can well remember 
someone asking me, about a decade ago, "Why bother with 
black-and-white? The world's in color. We have color film. What's 
the point?". This was from someone old enogh to remember 
when color film, while available, was considered a luxury 
available to a few; everyone else "settled" for black-and-white.

I don't think this overall perception has disappeared, and in the 
realm of digital photography - from camera to computer to printer 
- b/w is, for the most part, considered superfluous, if not 
downright illogical. Color is where the action - and the money - 
is. (It's also one of the reasons I've basically rejected digital 
capture for my own work - every technique for "creating" b/w from 
color images, *for me*, simply inadequate, although others have 
made a decent go of it).

There's also a "digital" mindset in action, I feel, where 
expediency trumps any previous aesthetic in place, especially as 
photography becaomes absorbed into the casual "Hey, it's all 
media to me" mix of mass entertainment/diversion (won't get 
started on *that*, but let's just say I'm a fan of Neil Postman and 
Jerry Mander). The faster people can get stuff done, the faster 
they *want* stuff done, and are frequently quite willing to sacrifice 
a number of things - quality included - if it means getting to "point 
B" faster. "Black-and-white? Maybe for scratching an occasional 
"retro" itch, but make it snappy and easy, okay?"

For me, and, I'll assume (yeah, I know that joke too) many, if not 
most subscribing this group, "black-and-white" is more than "the 
absence of color". But that is decidedly a minority opinion. Thank 
goodness there are enough people who understand this to keep 
b/w film sales going (in fact, according to the folks from 
Rochester, b/w film sales are *up* 25% - did someone forget a 
decimal point somewhere?). Now, if we could only get Kodak to 
make another dedicated digital camera, but I'm not hopeful - how 
many b/w dispos...I mean, single-use cameras are on the 
market?

- Barrett

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
claudej1@a... wrote:

> I'm using this post as a springboard for something that has 
>been on my mind for quite some time now. In the days of the 
>darkroom, no one would make a B&W on color paper. You shot 
>B&W film and used B&W paper and fovorite soups for all 
>that. Never the twain had met. Trying to print on matte papers 
>(not readily avalable anyhow_ produced pure mud.
> 
>So, my question is, why do we have such a double standard for 
>digital?
> 
> Color darkrooms with 16x20 processors were at least a 
>$25,000 investment to "do it right" B&W with Zone VI cold lights, 
>regulated supplies, temperatrue compensated timers, etc. 
>probably came to about $5,000 with the best enlarger lenses 
>(okay maybe a grand used, but my point remains).
> 
> So now we can create gorgous results with dedicated printers 
>that cost $3,000 or less and we still BITCH? 
> 
>This stuff is truly more affordable than ever for the serious 
>hobbyist.
> 
>Heck I paid $9,000 for my first Kodak dye sublimation printer in 
>1996 and modern inkjets do a much better job for 1/20th the 
>price and about 1/2 to 1/4 material cost.
> 
>I have owned over a dozen inkjet printers since the original 
>Epson Stylus and now have 8 of them for various dedicated 
>tasks.
> 
>3 different B&W setups, one for glossy prints and canvas, one 
>for matte papers, etc.
> 
>Good printers are cheap, computers are cheap, what's wrong 
>with dedicating a printer and/or a computer to a specific task 
>only?
> 
>In the same vein, everyone wants "THE" camera to do 
>everything digital.......WHY?
> 
>When I shot film, I had every format from 35mm to 8x10 (still 
>have the 4x5 for B&W and color DiComed Scan back) along 
>with full range of glass for all. Each one was needed for a 
>different job.
> 
>So, again, I ask, why the double standard for 
>digital????????????????????????
> 
> Claude Jodoin
> TEch. Editor/writer
> Rangefinder mag.
> Digital output since 1986
> Filmless since 1999
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]