Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly but with one caveat:
> 
> Until the end result truly steps out of the shadow (and bigotry) of its
> predecessor it will remain judged by the best that its predecessor can
> deliver.

The end result did step out of the shadow for many. I wouldn't bother
giving advice or opinion unless it's backed by experience. Trouble is,
imitation is so ingrained in the culture that I think at times it is
confused with creativity.
In art there is no such thing as 'traditional standards', standards
evolve as art evolves, as techniques evolve.
The fact that a lot of current 'art' photography is still measured
against and imitates Adams despite the fact that he represents only
one step in photography among may others, important as may be, tells a
different story then 'traditional standards'. In what other form of
art can one talk of 'traditional standards'?
 
> 
> I don't think this will really happen until the traditional guys
look at a
> digital print and agree, by their traditional standards, "that's
pretty damn
> good".  The advantages that digital has in the realm of image
management and
> editing means digital dwarfs the traditional domain in this respect.
 The
> choice of textures and finishes in the matte domain has already been
> enormously expanded.  However, the allure of a "good" black takes
the gloss
> of this achievement (excuse the pun).  But we get closer every day.
The K3
> inks are a massive leap forward.
> 


So you think the secret is in the ink.

Andu