Digital BW, The Print

I have just discovered your group and hope you don't mind my adding a 
bit to the conversation.
Martin, thanks for the kind words about our magazine!
Yes, we do use digital negatives in our process of making the 
LensWork Special Editions prints. I have been very candid about this 
and discussed it in length both in the magazine (LensWork #23, page 
11) and in an article on our website called "An Alternative to the 
Gallery System" posted at http://www.lenswork.com/lwsarticle2.htm. 
There I outline the use of the computer and our digital component. 
Our method is somewhat different than Dan Burkholder's method. In 
fact, Dan and I taught a workshop together demonstrating the 
differences in approach and results. We may do so again! Dan's work 
is stunning and perfectly appropriate for his platinum prints. His 
method, however, doesn't work as well for silver prints due to the 
higher resolution of silver paper and the inherent problems with a 
stochastic screen. I pioneered a different technique that is, quite 
simply, better for silver, simpler and faster. We use 425-line screen 
negatives from an Agfa Avantra 44 image setter created from an 
Acrobat file. I am happy to share more details if you are interested. 
We have no secrets. We even published our transfer curve in Dan's 
second edition book.
I believe that the digital darkroom is the greatest tool to come to 
photography since the positive/negative process. It is more important 
than any other great invention in photography -- more important than 
roll film, more important than the Zone System, more important than 
the electronic shutter or the handheld camera. My personal work is 
now almost all digital in the creative phases and only "analog" when 
I print my digital negatives on silver paper. At this point I don't 
use an ink-jet printer. I will in time. I have no doubt that the 
technology will continue to improve and issues of permanency, 
acceptance in the marketplace, and scale will be resolved in the 
favor of technolgy. There will be those (mostly people with a 
financial interest to protect) who will resist this evolution. I 
understand this. But their protests will seem siller and sillier as 
time goes on.
In fact, I would love it if digital technology became the new 
paradigm for fine art photography because I believe in it so 
strongly. I've taken a considerable amount of heat from some of my 
fellow photographers because of our pricing philosophy, but I feel 
strongly that one of the best benefits of this digital evolution (as 
well as mechanical digital prints from ink-jet printers) is the 
possibility that fine art photography can become affordable again to 
everyone. I am much more interested in the changes in DISTRIBUTION 
that will be developed from digital technologies than I am changes in 
CREATIVITY, though both will be profoundly impacted by these 
technologies.
As to the photogravures, our printer is Russ Dodd and he is, 
unequivocally, the best photogravure printer in the world. I have 
seen Strange Ross' work and it simply does not compare. I've 
seen "the best" photogravures in the world both historically and from 
contemporary photogravure printers and I am here to tell you that 
Russ Dodd's photogravures are simply better, richer, more subtle and 
refined. And yes, he is using a variation on the digital negative 
technique. Why? Because digital negatives are the solution to so many 
of photography's technical problems. I am convinced that we will look 
back on traditional enlarger-based printing techniques as a quaint, 
but primitive methodology.
As to our website that emphasizes that our Special Editions are not 
ink-jet prints, we do so to limit confusion. Our pricing strategy has 
created confusion and folks tend automatically to assume our prints 
are ink-jet prints from a printer or they couldn't be so cheap. 
(There is a lot of education required here -- as most of you probably 
know. It takes a long time and a great deal of technical skill to 
make a good ink-jet print and that they are so disparaged in the 
marketplace is a shame.) We hear this from folks all the time. In 
fact, it's kind of a joke around here. People will stop by our 
gallery and ask, "How do you make these prints?" We tell them they 
are gelatin silver prints printed from a digital master negative 
created from a scan of the master print. The silver photographic 
paper is then processed in a traditional wet darkroom using 
traditional photographic paper and chemistry, process to museum 
archival standards, selenium toned and finished by hand. They will 
then often ask, without blinking, "So which Epson printer are you 
using?" We've heard this exchange so many times we have learned that 
it is important for us to emphasize and then repeat that our prints 
are traditional gelatin silver photographic paper, over and over 
again until they get it. 
I think this illustrates a fundamental shift in our world. For 
decades now the education required when communicating to a potential 
buyer of a photograph was centered on the photographer and their 
importance as a "personality." Comments about the process or the 
medium were almost non-existent. Now, with all the variations in 
production methods, the challenge to educate consumers will separate 
the good galleries from the bad, the good websites from the bad, and 
the reputable producers from the bad. As ditital artists, those of 
you on this forum had best be prepared for the coming backlash as the 
first crop of digital prints begin to fade and turn blue on people's 
walls. It pains me to say it, but there are some digital artists out 
there who have been selling early digital prints now without full 
disclosure to the buyers and I fear there is a time bomb of bad PR 
headed our way.
That is why this forum and others like it are so important. In short, 
you guys on this forum are right and I just wanted to let you know 
that I am firmly on your side!
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing