Digital BW, The Print

Thanks for your post, Chris, with which I agree wholeheartedly.  
While I have been doing photography (b&w) since my teens and am now 
a "senior", I am self taught.  I have, on the other hand, studied 
drawing and painting quite seriously for many years.  Two of my 
teachers were trained in European academies and so I worked hard at 
learning to use the pencil to achieve strong lines and subtle 
shadings/values.  (In photography, I have used large format [4x5] to 
try to get subtle mid-tone values).  Ironically, though, for some 
reason (not enough control?) I only recently began to seriously work 
with charcoal and am now in love with the beauty of its darks. I have 
done some monochromatic paintings (in sepia tones) but not in b&w - 
your technique intrigues me. . .But back to your original point, 
having a diverse selection of materials with which to work is reason 
to rejoice, as is having various printing methods available in 
photography.  And if you read this, Clayton, thanks for your writings 
on BO and your ratings of papers.  Best, Edward            --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "brigsby707" 
<brigsby707@c...> wrote:
> I'm intrigued and baffled by the apparent tension
> that develops over these printing methods. And, I
> had a few thoughts I'd like to throw out there (mind
> you, it's 3:00 AM and it's way past my bedtime, so
> if you'd like, you're more than welcome to disregard
> my ramblings).
> 
> Anyway, I am a painter by education as well as
> vocation.  But, not the the type most are used to. I
> paint photorealistically in B&W.  And, prior to getting
> into painting, I was an avid draftsman, producing
> photorealistic drawings with graphite (I had about
> the fullest range of graphite densities available, in
> different thicknesses from chubby graphite sticks to
> mechanical pencils), charcoal, and a few other
> monochromatic methods. And I was a bit of a hack
> B&W photographers.
> 
> To me, each of these mediums have always had their
> benefits as well as drawbacks.  For example, graphite
> can be used to render some of the most refined and
> delicate details, but falls short of producing the
> blacks that can be accomplished with charcoal.  And,
> charcoal, while it can be used to produce very refined
> images, can be quite difficult and frustrating to work
> with and is more a substance that you learn to work
> in cooperation with than control.  Then you have
> painting, that while it allows probably the greatest
> ability to correct and adjust the image by means of
> painting over an area to be changed, is a fluid medium
> that does not lend itself to the type of fine lines
> achievable with graphite or the gradations so easily
> created with charcoal.  And last, there's photography,
> which to me, while it renders the world in "optical
> correctness" can often be the most difficult to use
> as a means of communicating.
> 
> Now these were the sum of my repertoire until about
> a year and a half ago, when I got into B&W digital
> printing.  At first, I knew nothing at all about dedicated
> B&W methods.  I simply hit the Black Ink only option
> in the Epson driver for my 925.  The results were quite
> horrendous in my opinion, compared to a photograph,
> but were beautiful in their own right, and I grew to
> appreciate them for what they were (If you think the
> dots from the new machines are bad, I can send an
> example print from the 925).  But soon I found that I
> wanted to reproduce my paintings as accurately as
> possible and felt that the BO option didn't quite cut
> it.
> 
> I needed some means of reproducing the smooth
> gradients and solid values in my paintings, which
> at first led me to buy an Epson 2200 (I still hadn't
> found out about dedicated processes), only to discover
> that the B&W prints, while they were printed with two
> inks were still "grainy" and overly warm for what I needed.
> This then resulted in me purchasing an Epson 1280 and a
> dedicated inkset.  The first print out of that machine
> was nothing short of a disappointment, it just looked
> so flat to me.  But once again, the images grew on me
> till I grew to love them in their own right.  And, by the
> way, my glossy B&W prints out of my 2200, while they
> don't look like a gelatin silver print (and why should
> they?), and have a "color" all their own, have their own
> beauty as well.
> 
> I think the point is (in case you haven't inferred it yet) is
> that each of these processes, graphite, charcoal, B&W
> chemically processed prints, and whatever flavor of
> inkjet you prefer all have their strengths and weaknesses
> regardless of whether you have an oppinion one way or
> the other.  That is the inherent nature of any artistic
> medium.  You're representing "your world" as you see it
> through a 2D surface that has been prepared by you to
> express whatever it is you're seeking to express.  And,
> what you've put on that surface ain't reality.  But it does
> serve (dependent upon your level of skill) to effectively
> communicate your particular spin on reality.
> 
> Well, I think that's just about enough of my diatribe. One
> last note though, I still use all of these processes to one
> extent or another and feel that not only have they all
> served me artistically, but they have all increased my
> understanding and awareness of the capabilities that
> are so unique to B&W media of any kind and all have
> their respective place in the artistic world.
> 
> So, on that note, Peace, Love, Happiness, Laughter,
> Silliness, Random Acts of Kindness and the occasional
> Smile to everyone.
> 
> Eric
> www.ericashworth.net