> John, > Are you saying it's not possible for a reasonably intelligent person to take > the 4-day Black and White Digital Fine Print workshop (K7) at Cone's and > produce gallery quality prints from artist's files in a very short time? > > Best regards, > John Moody ----------- Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Produce "gallery quality" prints. Well there are a multitude of bad galleries out there that have all kinds of horrible imagery in them, inkjet and otherwise, and some people like that work, some don't. What I am saying is that there is an art to digital printmaking which is no easier than the art of silk screen printing, Cibachrome printing, lithography printing, or platinum printing. The better the technology gets the higher the bar is for the printmaker to distinguish himself from everyone else. Yes, the technology gets a lot better, it all depends on what you are used to looking at how far you need or want to go, and who your clients are. Photo literature has always been full of marketing of this system or that system or this new paper or this new film, to make the job easy. That never happens. Printing from a perfectly conceived and interpreted file is a huge luxury that most of us do not have unfortunately. 90% of what people pay me to do is to interpret their files, or translate them, however you want to look at, into a specific medium - a specific ink-media combination with a look suitable to that persons vision and personality for that particular context. Every image is different and very rarely is a file "finished" when it is ready to be output. Almost never in my experience. For black and white I find critical curve shapes and level adjustmets and dodging and burning zones within the area is usually necessary for the finest result, whether that be from the best drum scan or a sad noisy digital camera file. That experience is gained not by a 4 day workshop but by years of looking at and refining images and learning to "see" things. The negative is the score and the print is the performance. If we all had the same file to work from we could have multiple performances, many may be equally valad, many similar, but rarely would they all be the same. If that were the case I wouln't want to be involved in this at all. Everything would be a mechanical rendering of a pre-existing file. Now that would be boring beyond belief. We could just create a robot do it all. John
Message
Re: [Digital BW] state of the art archival b/w digital out put
2006-03-10 by john dean
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.