Digital BW, The Print

Amen!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
> For reasons I won't go into there is a silver fine art print by Carl
> Chiarenza in my studio right now.
> http://homepage.mac.com/chiarenza/Menu2.html
> Like all, I am probably more biased than I realize, but none of the
> quad prints here on good art papers that utilize much black suffer by
> comparison. No doubt they have lower dmax, but they look rich and by
> no means weak next to Carl's beautiful print.
> You gotta pick the medium to make the particular image sing, instead
> holding biases about particular materials. Or the reverse, pick
> materials you love and make the images work on them, or some mix of
> both...
> I say this now because Carl is universally known as someone utilizing
> a lot of black as part of his visual vocabulary, and also as one who
> goes for as much dmax as possible. I could claim all day that the
> quads here are as good as my silver, but it wouldn't mean anything
> since you don't know if I had my silver together, we all know Carl does.
> I'm positive I could not make Carl's image more impressive or even as
> good with a pigment inkjet on matte. It wouldn't say what he intended.
> On the other hand I venture to add that he could possibly not make a
> silver print of one of my images as nice as my quad print.
> 
> At risk of angering people, I'd say that when someone says matte
> prints suck, it really means their matte prints of their images suck,
> or they've never seen a good one.
> I could state my opinion, that there are no "photo" surface inkjet
> papers that do not look artificial and cheap, and therefore inkjet
> photo surface prints suck. But they probably actually don't, I just
> lack user knowledge of them and an affinity for them, and such a
> statement really provides nothing useful to anyone anywhere, does it?
> 
> Tyler