Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Richard,

I have to say I also posted this question over in www.photo.net, and someone there mentioned .dng files - and I had to respond by saying I'd never heard of that format! Obviously I'm on the low end of the learning curve.

Your suggestions are well-taken. But then how do we get the National Register to understand this new approach, incorporating your comments? I have had some positive e-mail exchanges with one of their staff, and these ended up with their accepting my proposal to do carbon ink prints instead of their recommended color digital prints. But I had to alter the original prints to print good b/w and they don't want altered files. That's my dilemma. I think I'll end up sending them _both_ my original files and the printer-optimized files. 

With all due respect to the Register, I have to agree with your last paragraph. I had to think also that they aren't that familiar with digital processes either. (Of course, I'm still learning, too!)

I appreciate your feedback!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "richardeskin" <richeskinphoto@...> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that if they want files (not just prints), they would be much better off with .dng than raw files.  If long duration accessibility is important, proprietary raw files might not be supported 10 or 20 years down the road, but open format .dng probably will continue to be readable.
> 
> Their criteria should probably also focus more on resolution and size, e.g., 300 dpi at a given size, without need for interpolation than for a number of megapixels.
> 
> Another approach they could consider are two images, one with a color and density standard included in the image (reference image) and second without but otherwise identical (display image).  
> 
> Their standard for an unaltered file using RAW also suggests a possible lack of understanding of digital photographic processes.