Digital BW, The Print

Reading the article I can see the somewhat negative overtones.   But I view it more
as an observation that photography is a two stage process.  Stage one is clicking
the shutter -- capturing the image in the camera.  Whoever does this stage is given
credit for the image.  He/she is the one who owns the copyright, whose name is 
forever attached to the image.  Stage two is making a print from the negative or 
the memory card.   Many photographers insist on doing both stages but many
others let others do this part of the task.  This isn't a digital vs film issue it's just a
direct result of how photography is done.  Cole Weston printed many of his father
Edward's negatives, Alan Ross still prints 1000's of Ansel Adams' Yosemite images.
Many just send their work out for printing as a general rule.

There certainly is something special about having a print that was produced entirely
by the photographer.  But I don't see it as a requirement.
In the Walker Evan's case the digital process makes it particularly easy for prints 
to be made by others.  The images are public domain so there isn't a copyright
problem and digital scans are easy to distribute rather than the negative.

The writer makes a deal about the prints being larger that Evan's original prints.
Admittedly digital has a tendency to encourage large prints because it's so easy,
but that it probably also has a lot to do with how the prints are to be exhibited.

Roy
  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Aschkenas 
<Daschkenas@...> wrote:
>
> I too, view this review as somewhat negative.  In the curatorial art world
> the ³vintage² print is always king.  I¹ve seen some really bad vintage
> prints by blue chip photographers including Walker Evans and Andre Kertesz
> just to name two.  Lots of classic photographers were not very good in the
> darkroom.  I¹ve seen vintage Evan¹s prints that were brown and yellow due to
> poor processing at auction, and collectors preferred them to more modern
> prints that were not only printed better, but also processed properly.
> If the ease of making larger prints existed years ago ( during the heyday of
> Evans, Stieglitz, Strand, and the other classic photographers), I¹m sure
> many of them would have opted for making larger prints.  There are some
> great Steichen gum bichromate prints that are in the 16 x 20 size range that
> date to the very early part of the 20th century.
> Of course different size prints are viewed differently, and just making a
> mediocre print as big as a wall certainly doesn¹t help it.
> Just my 2 cents.
> David Aschkenas
> 
> -- 
> David Aschkenas
> 915 N. Euclid Ave.
> Pittsburgh, PA 15206
> 412-363-3458
> 
> www.daschkenasphoto.com
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>