Digital BW, The Print

I don't think you are missing much at all, Paul.
I also did and do both. I like both but I must say that, for me at
least, B&W has always been an exacting taskmaster. It's also very
rewarding when it works. The abstraction allows for expression beyond
just eyesight and opens more subjective interpretations IMO.

I also use tints and color based grays at times for particular
effects. One of the things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread as
yet however is the metamerism inherent in using too much color dot
structure. I know CD speaks in terms of microdots and invisibility but
I still see distinct differences, with varying lighting, between the
gray inks versus color based B&W. It may very well be that the newer
printers are helping to minimize the effect but it is still there.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> I did color and B&W -- film and wet darkroom printing -- and one of the
> major attractions of B&W for me is the lack of color, with all its
> distractions and complexities. 
> 


Sort of like half of a photographer ;-} Maybe if someone else held the
camera it could be reduced to a third and then billed as a
collaborative effort. Or better yet just send someone else out to make
the photos entirely...oh! That's called an editor or art director or
something I think :)

Actually nothing wrong with that in the workaday world. I made
thousands of prints for others in the past. When it comes to objects
d'art though, I would think the partial party doesn't deserve the full
credit for the work. IMO of course.

No. You're missing nothing.
> 
> 
> >Third, at the risk of being too obvious I'd distinguish 
> >between a "photographer" and a "printer." 
> >The photographer doesn't necessarily need to make prints--...
> > They can hire someone else--
> 
> This seems to have been much more common with color photography than
with
> B&W.  I think much more of the art of B&W is in the darkroom than is the
> case with color photography.  I'm not a photography historian, but
most of
> the B&W masters seem to have done their own printing.  But I'm
probably just
> missing something here ...
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>