Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:

> We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above depends on that degree 
> IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in focus. Sharp grain is far 
> more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp anywhere.

That describes my love/hate relationship with B&W grain quite 
well. But with color grain/clouds it is far less  appealing to 
me and I guess to more people. So you may have the strange 
conclusion that an analogue B&W image allows a larger print 
than a color print (analogue and digital prints) while there 
isn't more data available but just because there is that 
convention in taste about B&W grain. Part of the appreciation 
of BO printing in this list is related to that. All this 
probably has much to do with book printing, text, all that 
pure B&W graphic material we know since written language 
became black ink on white paper. We are less pleased with hard 
CMY/RGB dots on screens and papers.

I realised this again on Saturday after I bought an 
antiquarian Josef Sudek monograph by Anna F\ufffdrov\ufffd. I love his 
photographs but find it hard to overcome that modern taste for 
contrast and definition when I look at his earliest 
photography. Superb reproductions so that isn't the reason. 
The material and taste of that time resulted in images I find 
too soft while the composition etc still remain interesting. 
His work later on is far easier to appreciate. Nothing new of 
course, photos made by Steichen, Cameron require the same 
change of mind when viewed now. On the other hand I like the 
early Autochromes by Lartigue, color work by Sarah Moon, etc 
soft as they are. It could well be my printing background that 
makes this shift in appreciation more pronounced than others 
will experience, I do not know.

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )