Digital BW, The Print

Tyler,

>Seriously, I'm looking for photographic output here. I suspect some
>people don't know what that is. Ever seen, say, an Emmit Gowan 
>contact 8x10 print? 

Not Emmet Gowan, but have seen a number of beautiful contact prints
over the years (Morley Baer, Edward and Brett Weston and Laura Gilpin
come to mind).  I understand your point, and am glad the technology
is making it possible.  An 8x10 contact print can be breathtaking, but
I have never been willing to buy, haul around and use an 8x10 camera
in order to get that result (although I was temped once [g]).  It just
wasn't worth it for me.  Like Paul said earlier, we each have to find
our own comfort level where the cost-benefit ratio balances with our
aspirations, etc.  

In the film world I went up as far as 4x5 for a time, but eventually
settled in at 6x7 where the bulk of my work for 20 years was done.  On
the processing side I found my comfort level with the Fred Picker
modified zone system, for me a good balance between effort and
result.  

Here in the digi world I've found my upper time/effort limit and have
found little patience for RIPS and curves, etc.  Happily, the 2400 is
producing really fine results that, as a former 6x7 user, are more
than acceptable (nothing I saw before K3, including the best from
exchanges in those days, was completely acceptable to me, for various
reasons).  (If there is anything still not where I would like it to
be, it is the paper, not the printer).  If I had been an 8x10 contact
printer then probably the 2400 wouldn't be acceptable.

Yes, it is all subjective.  We must also remember that in the film
world there existed a realm wherein large format, contact prints or
otherwise, was not considered the measure of superiority.  Bresson
is probably the best example of where content carried greater weight
than technical print quality.  By striving for contact print quality
in carbon ink prints you are essentially hanging your hat in the
digital equivalent of the large format film realm.  But there are the
Bressons of the digital world for whom 2400 ABW prints are perfectly
adequate to get their message across.  We need both of course.

I'm extremely happy that the technology is constantly improving. 
Certainly some of it it will trickle down to my level.  I look forward
to things getting even better.  I'm very appreciative of the Tyler
Boleys and the John Sextons of this world to set the standards - they
are essential.  We just can't all work on that level.


>Again, this has nothing to do with subjective expectations. In fact, 
>I'm very aware of your thoughts on coverage and they came to mind 
>again doing this. I've never criticized them and consider them valid,
>just subjective.

Thank you for that.  You are a gentleman and have always shown respect
even though we are working at different levels.  You are one of the
people who have made it worth staying in this forum during difficult
times.


>...jump in the same pile I did...

This has been a really interesting thread with lots of good thoughts
being shared.  I'm sure there are many readers absorbing a lot and
benefitting from this.  I'm glad we can all discuss these things with
mutual respect and not descend into arguments, etc.  Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm