Digital BW, The Print

Bill, well stated and I agree with you. Problem is since I'm not a 
big name, marquis photographer I still must address my client's 
concerns about permanence. I think Harold has the the best solution 
for me, that is, "removing permanence from the conversation" and 
working around that issue. I could sacrifice my artistic integrity by 
using only Wilhelm tested papers but I'm inclined to keep using the 
papers I'm comfortable with and that give me best results. Besides, 
most manufacturer papers are similar to each other aren't they? (i.e. 
cotton rags,cellulose, barytas, etc.)and I'm sure all will perform in 
a comparable fashion over time. 

And if Mr.Client doesnt buy that, then tough for him!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@... 
wrote:
>
> Harold and Tyler, et al-
> 
> I seldom post but this topic really gets me going.
> 
> Archival is an artificial construct. Yes, I understand how and why 
it 
> is used. But Tyler made an excellent point in an earlier post: if 
an 
> artist's reputation is good enough, any issue related to "archival" 
is 
> either minimized or completely ignored. No one asks a painter. I've 
> rarely heard intaglio printmakers discuss the issue.
> 
> I use the best products available (for my own work and our 
customers), 
> and I gladly pay more for the privilege. I have learned and 
used "best 
> practices". But if I felt that making a print on newsprint or kraft 
> paper was the correct aesthetic decision, I have and will do it. 
And 
> will gladly disclose my process to a prospective buyer.
> 
> Lastly, to use "archival" to market images, and then use Wilhelm's 
> reports to justify it, doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't as 
bad as 
> asking the tobacco industry about health issues, but it's in the 
same 
> neighborhood.
> 
> Bill Kennedy
> K2 Press
> Austin, Texas
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:21 pm
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Permanence Ratings for Fine Art Media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harold, with respect I have to disagree, and this is fodder for
> 
> another thread entirely- the impact of people like Wilhelm on the
> 
> marketplace...
> 
> anyway, my point is that in my subjective opinion, for my own work 
and
> 
> offered services, my artistic vision would be severely compromised 
by
> 
> having to stick with materials combinations rated by Wilhelm.
> 
> Obvioulsy I belong to a small niche group and the majority may
> 
> disagreee. I still think it would serve the manufacturers well to 
help
> 
> us out a bit with this issue.
> 
> Tyler
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Harold Jackson
> 
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > I try to remove the permanence question from the conversation by
> 
> using papers that have been rated by Wilhelm.  In other words start
> 
> from the end and work back.  What papers have been tested and, of
> 
> those papers, which ones fit my artistic vision?  Only after
> 
> concluding that none of the rated papers is a match would I venture
> 
> into the unrated papers.  It's already hard enough to sell our work 
at
> 
> a good price, why add to the difficulty?  I recognize that this is a
> 
> pretty commercial approach but there are so many rated papers that 
it
> 
> is rarely necessary to compromise artistic vision for commerce.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #AOLMsgPart_2_233efac7-12b8-4274-b665-efb18a6e4196
> 
> 
> #AOLMsgPart_2_233efac7-12b8-4274-b665-efb18a6e4196
> 
> 
> #AOLMsgPart_2_233efac7-12b8-4274-b665-efb18a6e4196
> 
> 
> 
______________________________________________________________________
__
> More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
> http://webmail.aol.com
>