Digital BW, The Print

wow.....isn't this just a bit snooty?
On Apr 21, 2005, at 6:03 AM, Seth wrote:
>
>  ALSO, Walmart/CVS/Costco, etc. use it for amateur stuff for a reason. 
> It's
>  usually high contrast in addition to gloss.  Both tend to make up for 
> the
>  failings of amateur cameras, plastic lenses, etc.  They enhance 
> otherwise
>  softer images. That, and the ability to treach a chimpanzee to run the
>  machine, make for cheap sales. <GGG?
> C'mon, I know lots of people that are smart, and have taste, and have 
> seen photographs in galleries, and read lenswork magaizine, and also 
> like a nice glossy print. I also think that glossy prints many times 
> look just better, and more effective. The main problem is that usually 
> an inkjet glossy print is some combination of the following problems: 
> 1) way too glossy, 2) bronzing like crazy like it was sprinkled with 
> glitter,  3) suffering from gloss diferential, where some parts are 
> glossy and others are dull. All of these are fixable. using Glop, and 
> pauls workflow, on costco paper you get a real nice slightly glossy 
> print that looks a lot like a air dried print, and nothing like a 
> peice of cheap plastic. Using Premium semi-matte, it is even more like 
> an air dried print. Not to mention that the image quality and dynamics 
> are superb. Way better than photo rag lets say (technically speaking). 
> Most people like the look of an air-dried glossy print. Not too 
> glossy. I have a bunch of them that my dad did when we had the 
> darkroom setup when I was in junior high. With glop you have a print 
> with very much the same vibe. The people I show prints to, normal, 
> intelligent, tasteful people, like them, and when they see the print 
> they look at the image first. With rag prints, they look at the 
> surface, then the image. Simply writing off the gloss print as bush 
> league is writing off a lot of the history of photographic 
> printmaking. A good matte print is not inherently better than a good 
> gloss print. Both are good, and they always have been.

>  Since we control that with workflow, we don't need the boost.
>
>  I had a woman come through the booth once, take a long hard look at a 
> matte
>  print of a lily, framed behind glass, then turn to me and say, "I am a
>  watercolor artist too. What type of paints do YOU use?"
> I have had that happen too with a rag print. Someone did not even 
> think it was a photograph. I want people to recognize the print as a 
> photgraphic print. Some images may need a more painterly vibe, and a 
> fuzzy toothy rag surface might be great. There is room for everything 
> under the big umbrella of "good taste"

just my two cents worth, Doug M


>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]