Digital BW, The Print

Excellent point, Richard, a very positive direction to take. When I had my initial conversations, by phone and e-mail, with the Register staff person, I sent her some links and articles stating the case for carbon ink printing. I was in fact trying to be helpful by way of pointing out the archival benefits of this kind of print. Maybe I didn't do a very good job at that... perhaps I will have another opportunity. I'm quite sure I share their concerns, it's something we're all concerned about and we do have a common goal. I did send some sample prints as well (hard copies, not e-mail attachments) and she approved them. We're all on the cutting edge here and lately I've seen more and more references to carbon ink printing - perhaps we'll reach a critical mass some day.

Thanks again, you've expressed a very constructive approach.

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "richardeskin" <richeskinphoto@...> wrote:
>
> I would encourage you to further engage them on their goals and concerns, rather than directly on their standards.  If together you could be clear on their concerns and what they are trying to accomplish (or avoid), you could possibly show them alternate ways to achieve those goals that serve both of your needs.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <paulmwhiting@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> >
>