Digital BW, The Print

Good points Derek. My feelings as well.

While I like deep blacks as well as anyone, they aren,t necessarily 
called for on every image. IMHO.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Ealy" 
<dealy663@h...> wrote:
> Clayton said that he had created a print on Arches that would not 
be 
> considered to be a "good" print from a modern technical viewpoint 
by most 
> photographers. And that it was similar in a lot of ways to the 
reproductions 
> of the old platinum prints done by the likes of Steiglitz.
> 
> I was just at the Getty museum a few days ago and I saw several 
old platinum 
> prints (in real life, no repros) made by Paul Strand. Some of 
which were 
> likely displayed in 291 and printed in Camera Work by Steiglitz 
himself. I 
> had remarked to one of my photo buddies in a similar way to what 
Clayton had 
> said. These prints suffered from technical flaws which we would 
today deem 
> as crappy and/or unacceptable. The prints were dark, grainy and 
really 
> didn't have the deepest blacks I've seen on inkjet prints. Yet 
some of these 
> photos were absolutely stunning!
> 
> I saw one where Strand was mimicking some of the impressionist 
paintings 
> that he had liked in a photo. It was blurry and of low contrast, 
yet it was 
> a scene which very much reminded me of something that Monet would 
have 
> painted. Once again I was bowled over by the beauty of this print.
> 
> I too am frequently amazed by the amount noise I hear on this 
forum about 
> how this paper or ink is good or no good because it does or 
doesn't provide 
> some quantitative measure of density. It is all about the image, 
and whether 
> or not it moves the viewer, and nothing else (IMHO).