Digital BW, The Print

Hello Jim,

>wonder if we are truly justified in calling these objects
>photographs at all since they are not created from a light 
>sensitive material?  It's probably more of a philosophical or
>intellectual discussion signifying little, but it's sort of 
>fun to think about.

It's an interesting point and I mentioned it in the article, followed
by some quotes from reference books showing that ink-based
photographs, in the form of photogravures, have been an accepted
photographic art form for well over 100 years.  So it kind of pulls
the rug out from under it as an issue.  And I agree it is a fun
intellectual concept to wrap the mind around.  

For me the idea that our prints are ink-based is very intriguing and
exciting because it immediately conjurs up images of primitive
technologies (I call it "a link to the past" in the article).  When
you think of it like that it's easier to see that what we're doing
really is a new and different medium, and that they shouldn't be
compared to silver.  Photogravures are accepted for what they are, and
are actually revered for their unique qualities. Why not carbon ink
prints?  I think the fact that our works of art are ink on paper
should be capitalized on and emphasized.

We are on the cutting edge of an entirely new art medium.  To me
that's exciting.  It's also one reason I'm not terribly upset about
BO's graininess - I use it for most of my prints.  I've gotten past
the idea of imitating silver or platinum prints.   If I spent hundreds
of hours putting millions of dots on paper with an ink pen to get this
result, I'd be famous and my prints would be looked at with awe, sell
for thousands and be in museums and wealthy homes.  

I love what we're doing and aside from some minor frustrations am
having a ball.  I'm more excited about photography now than I was for
a long time.  Maybe I'm just a romantic, but "Carbon Ink Print" really
clicks for me.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm