Digital BW, The Print

Tyler,

I have no problem with the "spirit" of your message, and I generally 
agree with you. I retrospect, I should have said was "when placed 
side-by-side under studio/gallery lights, the difference between 
matte and RC prints is REALLY, REALLY apparent." Is one better? I 
don't know. What I do know is that low tonal range prints (call 
them "flat"; not a pejorative) have a definite place in our arsenal. 
Now if we could rid the RC type papers (I much prefer the term "high 
Dmax") of the damn reflections, we would be closer to the ideal 
medium.

I am surrounded by galze-framed prints in my office; all made on 
William Turner, and I have NEVER felt the need to pull them down, to 
replace them with High Dmax equivalents.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh 
Jani" <shileshjani@> 
> wrote:
> >
> >...But put an RC 
> > paper under gallery-type spots, and they blow away the matte 
papers. 
> > I mean really blow them away - how can you compare Dmax of 2.5+ 
to 
> > 1.6 on the same wall. As has been said often, it must be like 
> > comparing silver prints to Pt/Pd; different looks, but can be 
made 
> > equally compelling in the right printers hands.
> 
> Shilesh, I'm not picking on you, your post is simply at hand and 
easily used to make a 
> point. In fact, the rest of your post, which I have conveniently 
snipped, indicates you 
> probably agree.
> 
> So onward-
> 
> I see these kinds of opinions stated primarily by photographers, 
rarely other artists. I think 
> most of us really need to get out from in front of our computers 
and test prints and get 
> out and see some master work.
> We just spent several hours at the SFMOMA. After hours of 
paintings and other mediums 
> with all kinds of physical materials qualities, brought alive by 
amazing workers each in 
> their own way, we come to the Modotti/Weston exhibit. There were 
platinums and silver by 
> both artists mixed together. Perhaps the previous hours had beat 
down our photo print 
> preconceptions and opened our eyes, but there seemed to be no 
difference at all. You 
> either liked each one or not on it's own terms. In fact, I never 
even thought about it until 
> days later reading your post.
> Nothing really blew anything else away, I mean really.
> We all have a lot to learn from our eyes, instead of our brains, 
when it comes to materials 
> and craftsmanship. This relates to the other thread about what 
makes a great B&W print as 
> well.
> It's become obvious to me over the years that photographers 
isolate themselves in their 
> own world detrimantally. In fact, when you read about the Modottis 
and Westins and 
> others who set the standards of our media, they hung with other 
artists of all kinds, rarely 
> other photographers.
> Tyler
> 
> PS- there were inkjet prints at the SFMOMA, and they were simpley 
called inkjet.
>