Digital BW, The Print

I've been looking for a thread to hijack to get a discussion going about the current state of Iris B&W printing, and Tyler's and the subsequent "rants" of others look like the perfect opportunity!  This is particularly so because I especially wanted to get Tyler's and Jon's inputs.
My interest in this topic started for me when my wife and I were in Apalachicola, FL in early January.  We found that photographer Ron Bickle (ronbiclephotoghraphy.com) has a gallery on the main street of the town, and went in to get a look at his work.  He had on display mostly B&W images from the "forgotten coast" area, and I was impressed by the quality of the prints and the emotional impact several of the prints had on me.  If I had the budget to buy gallery B&W prints, I would have bought several of his on the spot.  (As an aside, I noted how the larger 30X40 prints of the images had so much more visual impact than the smaller prints of the same image.)
My favorite images were:
Baptism at Camel Lake (New exhibits and prints Apalachicola: An American Treasure, American Treasure_17)Saturday on Spring Creek (New exhibits and prints Apalachicola: An American Treasure, American Treasure_16)September at Two Mile (ronbicklephotography.com/PhotoDisplay.cfm?ItemPicture=SeptemberAtTwoMile)
Ron was in the gallery, and I had a chance to talk with him for a few minutes before more visitors came in.  The notes on the prints indicated that they were taken with film, not digital cameras.  I started by commenting on how much detail without grain even the 30X40 prints had, and supposed he was using large format film.  I was surprised when Ron replied that he used 35mm fine grain film and Zeiss lenses.  He noted that for technique he in particular he likes to use wide angle lenses close up.  (Reading "between the lines" I surmise that he probably uses something like a Leica M rangefinder with the Zeiss lenses.)
He said that the smaller prints are silver gelatin, but that the large prints are Iris B&W prints done for him (both scanning and printing) by a printmaker in Atlanta, GA.  The images on the web site don't do justice to the beauty of the prints that were on display.  The tones are a rich (dark) chocolate and light cream and there is no apparent grain even on the 30X40 prints.
So aside from the beauty of the prints, which I hope you will view on his web site, I hope to get a discussion going about the current state of B&W Iris printing and comparison/contrast to the B&W printers and inks discussed on this forum.  (Jon's comments about the impermanence of technology seems especially appropriate re the Iris printers since they aren't being made any more.)
I did some web research on B&W Iris printing and found the following:
The original Iris printers were designed to be used for color pre-press proofs for the graphics/printing industry.
Graham Nash and Mark Holbert (of Crosby, Stills and Nash fame) along with David Coons (software development) adapted the Iris color printer to make B&W prints using Lyson quad black dye inks.
In 1998 Jon Cone developed a set of Digital Platinum B&W inks and a software driver for the Iris printer.
The Iris technology went through a number of acquisitions, with Kodak ended up buying the it, but has stopped manufacturing it.  I'm not sure what the current replacement is.
The technology of the Iris printers is very interesting - I'll let readers look it up on the web.  But, talk about waste ink!
Mike Brubaker      

--- On Wed, 4/7/10, tboleyyh <tyler@...> wrote:

From: tboleyyh <tyler@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: New Aardenburg Imaging fade tests posted
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 9:12 PM















 
 



  


    
      
      
      



--- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com, "piezobw" <jon@...> wrote:

..

> However, if longevity is not so critical - and image fidelity is not the most important factor - than why not just print in color and use Epson ABW?



well because it sucks. I can get away with that, perhaps the backlash for you would be too great if you don't maintain a more civilized voice and stance, so thanks for helping to promote generous discourse in this community. 

But I'm sorry, I don't want fine B&W printing to go backwards. I've argued and illustrated the superiority of the multi black systems I have access to, and compared the silver contact print, many times over the years to ABW. But that's just the technical stuff, I have to add that criteria for masterful photography has always had a technical element, it can't be helped, the process includes science. Add to that the visual impact differences. Now many don't see it, or if they do- don't care. Interestingly, often the people who are sensitive to it are those with a strong background in pre-digital fine print. Often people who don't care are new enthusiasts dslr, for whom good B&W was not even possible before ABW, so it is a revelation. We all welcome new photographers, but should they be who set the standards? Are we only trying to supply reasonable solutions to them?

The variety of criteria, and expectations, are huge, why must any of us comply with another's? Why because one person argues to me ABW is outstanding I'm supposed to accept that? I don't expect them to use my setup. In fact, I'm somewhat jealous they have a readily available out of the box solution that makes them happy.

I have old 3000 quad tone prints here I'd take over ABW, in a heartbeat. If it managed to force all other alternatives from the market, I'd make digital negs for platinum or head back to the darkroom. Oh wait, those solutions were crowded out of the marketplace as well. Guess what? ABW and many other "solutions" provided us now are not even as good as the old darkroom by some standards.

Longevity has always been extremely important in photography, and historically one of the greatest scientific challenges. But what's the point of prints that last forever, that fall behind artistically?

Thanks to everyone here working hard to develop systems that result in beautiful print, and/or promote longevity, hopefully we'll get it all, and make prints exceeding the photographic masterful quality of systems 100 years old.

End of incoherent rant...

... and by the way, where the heck is spring?

Tyler

http://www.custom- digital.com/





    
     

    
    


 



  











      

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