Digital BW, The Print

There's also this question: Is the image more important or is the
densitometry? 

Who is more able to honestly evaluate the aesthetic merit of a
photograph...a reasonably sensitive and well-informed casual viewer or
the darkroom/technology focused photographer?  

It's easy to convince oneself that one's darkroom mastery equals
visual merit, but it's not easy to convince other people...weak
imagery almost entirely explains the "lonely quest" affectation that's
so hackneyed among artist and writers...and photographers.

The earlier nude, for example: Is there anybody here who could not
have photographed her beautifully with out of date Kodacolor, printed
by the worst minilab? :-)

Djon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> High dmax has never been one of the attributes of matte surface art,
> when strictly compared to glossy photo prints. "Beautiful" blacks, on
> the other hand, are and have been. We are currently surpassing
> platinum print dmax, one of the most beautiful photographic print
> processes by some standards. Some of these things are subjective, and
> a very old timer might say silver never rose to the level of platinum.