Digital BW, The Print

On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie  
> <CDTobie@...> wrote:
> ....
>> For years photographers thought of the chrome (positive transparency,
>> on a backlit light table) as the standard; and it was certainly
>> unmatchable in any other format at the time, so saying "here is my
>> glorious work, it will look lousy when you make photo prints of it,  
>> or
>> send it to press" was a common photographer's viewpoint.
> ...
>
>> ...For others, its the final print on
>> paper, but thats mostly the printmakers...
>
> As someone with feet in both the commercial photography world, and  
> the fine art photography world, I'd redefine those categories.
> Commercial shooters, from large format ad work to 35mm Nat Geo work,  
> glorified the transparency, and were generally disappointed with  
> it's representation on paper and the compromises required to get it  
> there.
>
> But in the fine art photography community I was exposed to, color or  
> B&W, you weren't done until you had a successfull print. From Eugene  
> Smith to Eggleston, Gibson to Sommer, the print is the photograph.  
> It's not just a printmaker concern.
>
> This is not to suggest that all artists should follow this path, or  
> that all fine art photographers have or should have, certainly there  
> are many fascinating options.
> For me, from the beginning, I did not have a photograph until a  
> print that spoke was in physical existence. I was exposed to this by  
> several masters of photography early on, long before I was a  
> "printmaker".
> Tyler

No disagreements with any of that, except that I suspect you were a  
printmaker from the time you were scribbling in the fog on the window...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]