Digital BW, The Print

I don't have any trouble calling my work photography - photography is
what happens in front of my camera; what happens in the dark room or
in my computer/printer is mere technology; the exciting part is over
when I cap my lens. Please note that this is my *opinion*, yours may
be different, that's all. Neither one is gospel.

When I was showing prints on Fujichrome R, I said the show consisted
of photographs and told anyone interested what the paper was (what
camera I used, film, etc.), if they asked. The same is true with my
digital prints.

The work is still photography; I go into the field with a camera (and
film, incidentally), the images are still photographs - light is still
the source of the imagery; having a partially digital workflow is
immaterial and "painting with light" is not restricted to chemically
sensitized paper.

Do platinum/palladium printers make a fetish of the fact that they
(may) use digital negatives for making their prints? Should they? Is
it of any significance to the outcome? Perhaps it is, if the buyer is
in love with large format cameras/film and the image size is assuamed
 to mean that a large format camera was used to make a huge negative,
rather than being from an enlarged 35mm shot. Is this different from a
traditional enlarged negative used for the print?

The really big thing I think casual buyers may be wary of is being
taken in by "phony" images, straight-looking photos that are not
represented as manipulations, when they hear that something digital
happened on the way to the wall. Art buyers are something else: if
they even accept photography as "art" and are not merely autograph
collectors, then they are likely to be somewhat aware of modern
printing technology and will ask the pertinent quetions about the
expected longevity of accessions.

Good luck with whatever it is you call it,

Frank