Digital BW, The Print

Hello, 

This is just a short news item for you....the recent issue of B&W magazine (for collectors of fine photography) has dropped digital prints. 

In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital prints do not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" and not in a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have any articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.  

Too bad he doesn't realize the hours I spend on making a single great print...the sweat and the frustration of dealing with the technical issues to get it perfect.....the multitudes of "not-perfect" prints that I throw away...the attention to detail and the careful use of archival papers and inks...and the creativity involved not only in the image making but also...gasp...in the printing itself!   Yes...it is hard to make perfect prints....very hard.  Despite the best of tools and the best techniques...perfection is always hard....and sometimes unobtainable.  

Despite this...at least one of the profiled photographers says in his bio how important the traditional process is to him and his photography....and then at the bottom of the page offers to sell his prints as "giclees starting at....$xxx"  so...

Comments?  

Steadman


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

Very saddening. In fact, it blows. One steps forward, two steps back.

Thanks for passing it along.

Todd

> Hello, 
> 
> This is just a short news item for you....the recent issue of B&W magazine
> (for collectors of fine photography) has dropped digital prints.
> 
> In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital prints do not
> have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks
> important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" and not in a
> traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have any articles or
> feature any discussion of digital prints.
> 
> Too bad he doesn't realize the hours I spend on making a single great
> print...the sweat and the frustration of dealing with the technical issues to
> get it perfect.....the multitudes of "not-perfect" prints that I throw
> away...the attention to detail and the careful use of archival papers and
> inks...and the creativity involved not only in the image making but
> also...gasp...in the printing itself!   Yes...it is hard to make perfect
> prints....very hard.  Despite the best of tools and the best
> techniques...perfection is always hard....and sometimes unobtainable.
> 
> Despite this...at least one of the profiled photographers says in his bio how
> important the traditional process is to him and his photography....and then at
> the bottom of the page offers to sell his prints as "giclees starting
> at....$xxx"  so...
> 
> Comments?  
> 
> Steadman

Steadman Uhlich wrote:
 
> In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital prints do not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" and not in a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have any articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.

Hm....  Cameras are machines too.. and so are enlargers!  Why does B&W
magazine feature photographs made be cameras and enlargers? In the
end..... people make photographs.


-Jeff

Steadman,

This is essentially an untenable position on their part and a betrayal of
the interest of their readers. Now is the time to collect early digital
prints. You have to be rather thick to not realize that eventually digital
is going to be a very large and important B&W medium and the very first
efforts will be small in number, much sought after and highly valued.

Time will render the proper verdict on their decision. In the meantime I bet
they don't turn down any ads by photographers selling digital prints!

Martin Wesley


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


> Hello,
>
> This is just a short news item for you....the recent issue of B&W magazine
(for collectors of fine photography) has dropped digital prints.
>
> In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital prints do
not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks
important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" and not in
a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have any
articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.
>
> Too bad he doesn't realize the hours I spend on making a single great
print...the sweat and the frustration of dealing with the technical issues
to get it perfect.....the multitudes of "not-perfect" prints that I throw
away...the attention to detail and the careful use of archival papers and
inks...and the creativity involved not only in the image making but
also...gasp...in the printing itself!   Yes...it is hard to make perfect
prints....very hard.  Despite the best of tools and the best
techniques...perfection is always hard....and sometimes unobtainable.
>
> Despite this...at least one of the profiled photographers says in his bio
how important the traditional process is to him and his photography....and
then at the bottom of the page offers to sell his prints as "giclees
starting at....$xxx"  so...
>
> Comments?
>
> Steadman
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital
> prints do not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some
> other qualities he thinks important for collectors...given that
> they are made by "machine" and not in a traditional manner.
> So...from now on...this mag will not have any articles or feature
> any discussion of digital prints.
>
> Hm....  Cameras are machines too.. and so are enlargers!  Why does B&W
> magazine feature photographs made be cameras and enlargers? In the
> end..... people make photographs.

I am sure the magazine copy (words used in their articles etc.) is typed in
using a computer, and the images are scanned in using some sort of pre-press
scanner etc.  That just comes across as "dishonest" on their part, IMO.

Austin

Completely agree with you there.

That is why I am now selling dated "vintage" digital prints!

"Vintage Digital Prints" you ask? 

Yes...as the digital time line is an exponential timeline...(what was that called...the x factor...no it is that guy who invented the IC...what's his name...N---something...)  

Anyway...since digital progresses so quickly...any digital print that is one year old is (by dog years) already "vintage" in my book (grin)!

Some fun, 

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin Wesley 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  Steadman,

  This is essentially an untenable position on their part and a betrayal of
  the interest of their readers. Now is the time to collect early digital
  prints. You have to be rather thick to not realize that eventually digital
  is going to be a very large and important B&W medium and the very first
  efforts will be small in number, much sought after and highly valued.

  Time will render the proper verdict on their decision. In the meantime I bet
  they don't turn down any ads by photographers selling digital prints!

  Martin Wesley


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:09 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  > Hello,
  >
  > This is just a short news item for you....the recent issue of B&W magazine
  (for collectors of fine photography) has dropped digital prints.
  >
  > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital prints do
  not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks
  important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" and not in
  a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have any
  articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.
  >
  > Too bad he doesn't realize the hours I spend on making a single great
  print...the sweat and the frustration of dealing with the technical issues
  to get it perfect.....the multitudes of "not-perfect" prints that I throw
  away...the attention to detail and the careful use of archival papers and
  inks...and the creativity involved not only in the image making but
  also...gasp...in the printing itself!   Yes...it is hard to make perfect
  prints....very hard.  Despite the best of tools and the best
  techniques...perfection is always hard....and sometimes unobtainable.
  >
  > Despite this...at least one of the profiled photographers says in his bio
  how important the traditional process is to him and his photography....and
  then at the bottom of the page offers to sell his prints as "giclees
  starting at....$xxx"  so...
  >
  > Comments?
  >
  > Steadman
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
  other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  >
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  >
  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > - Include your full name with your message.
  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  them short.
  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  resources on the homepage.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >
  >


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Of course, he fails to point out that his magazine is digital, being 
produced from scans and probably composited in Quark or some such....

tim a

In a message dated 2/26/2002 4:32:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, jeffm@... 
writes:


> Cameras are machines too.. and so are enlargers!  Why does B&W
> magazine feature photographs made be cameras and enlargers? In the
> end..... people make photographs.
> 

I believe this is precisely the argument painters gave for their refusal to 
recognise photography as an art form way back when. Time will take care of 
everything. My problem is that my body is no longer in agreement with those 
famous Rolling Stone lyrics, "Time is on my side". :) or is it :( ?
George J Kunze


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

In a message dated 2/26/2002 4:38:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mwesley250@... writes:


> This is essentially an untenable position on their part and a betrayal of
> the interest of their readers. Now is the time to collect early digital
> prints. You have to be rather thick to not realize that eventually digital
> is going to be a very large and important B&W medium and the very first
> efforts will be small in number, much sought after and highly valued.
> 

BRAVO!!!!!!
George J Kunze


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

Steadman Uhlich wrote:

> In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital prints do
not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks
important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" and not in
a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have any
articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.

It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant letters to the
magazine that will get them into more of a corner.

For example, I'd want to know if silver prints that went through a digital
step are covered.  For example, what of the Lens Work type images.

Next, I'd want to know how collectors or the magazine can tell if there was
a digital step if the process.  Can they really police the policy?  Do they
have affidavits from all their advertisers and the photographers and others
whose photos are published?

I wonder what the other attributes of digital are that are of concern?
Maybe they could be specific.

If longevity and light fastness is one factor, how do they know that the
photos that are featured and advertised are properly processed?  If they are
not the carbon pigments on good paper is probably more archival.

In fact, if the partial toning that we silver printers were doing, it turns
out that the images are not really that archival.  I think I'll be able to
measure the yellowing of  partially-toned silver prints.  It may be low, but
I hope to match it -- in fact non-warming paper (no brighteners) may do it
already.

We must confess that the easy of making many copies is a problem for any
machine print.  Collectors want an object that cannot be made in quantity.
How one raises prices, all else being equal, is to limit output.  From an
economics perspective, the control that a monopolist has is limiting output.
It is only from that action that prices rise.  So, out put limitations is a
key to collectible value.  But, how many prints to A. Adams "make?"  I think
over 80,000, but this is hearsay.

So, there are issues we can work with here.  If the magazines' policy
becomes self-defeating, they'll change.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Very disappointing..
 But the cynical side of me sees this as a milestone
we will all look back on in amusement.  "Remember when
B&W magazine dropped digital prints and they went out
of business?! ;) What were they thinking??"  Sounds
rather reminiscent of "Man will never fly, etc." 
 But of course, none of this will be apparent any time
soon.
 Jeeze, and I thought we were *already* fighting an
uphill battle...

  Daniel Perez

--- Steadman Uhlich <steadmanuhlich@...>
wrote:
> Hello, 
> 
> This is just a short news item for you....the recent
> issue of B&W magazine (for collectors of fine
> photography) has dropped digital prints. 
> 
> In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says
> that digital prints do not have the tradition,
> heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks
> important for collectors...given that they are made
> by "machine" and not in a traditional manner. 
> So...from now on...this mag will not have any
> articles or feature any discussion of digital
> prints.  
> 
> Too bad he doesn't realize the hours I spend on
> making a single great print...the sweat and the
> frustration of dealing with the technical issues to
> get it perfect.....the multitudes of "not-perfect"
> prints that I throw away...the attention to detail
> and the careful use of archival papers and
> inks...and the creativity involved not only in the
> image making but also...gasp...in the printing
> itself!   Yes...it is hard to make perfect
> prints....very hard.  Despite the best of tools and
> the best techniques...perfection is always
> hard....and sometimes unobtainable.  
> 
> Despite this...at least one of the profiled
> photographers says in his bio how important the
> traditional process is to him and his
> photography....and then at the bottom of the page
> offers to sell his prints as "giclees starting
> at....$xxx"  so...
> 
> Comments?  
> 
> Steadman


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
Collectors want an object that
> cannot be made in quantity.
> How one raises prices, all else being equal, is to
> limit output.


This is VERY important, what Paul is talking about.
For me, it's a whole new way of thinking, almost
putting on a new pair of shoes for the first time; it
takes a while for it to be second nature.

For anyone serious about selling prints, the whole
concept of limited editions come into play. Whether it
be 10, or 25, or 50, or whatever, that honesty and
forthrightness is key to gaining respect. Once you
enter into the limited edition frame of mind, that
whole argument of "pressing the button" goes right out
the window.

So, like Paul says, we have a role in changing this
mindset. It's up to us.

Mark Tucker

=====
--------------------
Mark Tucker
http://marktucker.com
Please reply to mark@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

On 2/26/02 3:01 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant letters to the
> magazine that will get them into more of a corner.

Good ideas, those.

In addition, those of us who subscribe to and/or advertise with B&W might
let the editor know that we'll withdraw our support by cancelling
subscriptions or choosing other vehicles for advertising.  I'm sure that
being a "premium" magazine that is probably largely supported by
subscriptions, B&W might look at the situation a bit differently if it
realizes that at least some of its support comes from the very digital
printmakers they are now alienating.

(I haven't yet received my issue, so I don't want to comment specifically on
what B&W is trying to say.)

-- 
John Labovitz
johnl@...
www.johnlabovitz.com

One assumes that all text is put in directly from hot metal slugs then....
I mean to say, ask any decent typographer and they will tell you that
digital fonts hardly ever obey the recognised typographical rules so
photosetting must also be out of favour.

I look forward to this magazine producing an edition entirely dedicated to
and made from woodcuts.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


> > > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital
> > prints do not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some
> > other qualities he thinks important for collectors...given that
> > they are made by "machine" and not in a traditional manner.
> > So...from now on...this mag will not have any articles or feature
> > any discussion of digital prints.
> >
> > Hm....  Cameras are machines too.. and so are enlargers!  Why does B&W
> > magazine feature photographs made be cameras and enlargers? In the
> > end..... people make photographs.
>
> I am sure the magazine copy (words used in their articles etc.) is typed
in
> using a computer, and the images are scanned in using some sort of
pre-press
> scanner etc.  That just comes across as "dishonest" on their part, IMO.
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
they walk by on the way to lunch.

Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
your arms. The time is now.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Good points Paul.  

I especially think the archival nature of partially toned (and possibly those improperly processed) prints is a key issue....but not for them.  

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalB&WPrint 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  Steadman Uhlich wrote:

  > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital prints do
  not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other qualities he thinks
  important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" and not in
  a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have any
  articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.

  It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant letters to the
  magazine that will get them into more of a corner.

  For example, I'd want to know if silver prints that went through a digital
  step are covered.  For example, what of the Lens Work type images.

  Next, I'd want to know how collectors or the magazine can tell if there was
  a digital step if the process.  Can they really police the policy?  Do they
  have affidavits from all their advertisers and the photographers and others
  whose photos are published?

  I wonder what the other attributes of digital are that are of concern?
  Maybe they could be specific.

  If longevity and light fastness is one factor, how do they know that the
  photos that are featured and advertised are properly processed?  If they are
  not the carbon pigments on good paper is probably more archival.

  In fact, if the partial toning that we silver printers were doing, it turns
  out that the images are not really that archival.  I think I'll be able to
  measure the yellowing of  partially-toned silver prints.  It may be low, but
  I hope to match it -- in fact non-warming paper (no brighteners) may do it
  already.

  We must confess that the easy of making many copies is a problem for any
  machine print.  Collectors want an object that cannot be made in quantity.
  How one raises prices, all else being equal, is to limit output.  From an
  economics perspective, the control that a monopolist has is limiting output.
  It is only from that action that prices rise.  So, out put limitations is a
  key to collectible value.  But, how many prints to A. Adams "make?"  I think
  over 80,000, but this is hearsay.

  So, there are issues we can work with here.  If the magazines' policy
  becomes self-defeating, they'll change.

  Paul
  http://www.PaulRoark.com


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

My subscription ran out last month! I WILL NOT renew it. The editor, once 
admired, is now an idiot in my mind. If you look in all the ads from 
galleries, there are many that are selling some form of digital work and he 
is happy to take there ad money.
Steven Meyers


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., toomagenta@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/26/2002 4:32:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jeffm@g... 
> writes:
> 
> 
> My problem is that my body is no longer in agreement with those 
> famous Rolling Stone lyrics, "Time is on my side". :) or is it :( ?
> George J Kunze

You mean their cover of the Irma Thomas song. How quickly they 
forget! <G>

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., toomagenta@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/26/2002 4:38:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> mwesley250@e... writes:
> 
(snip)
> 
> BRAVO!!!!!!
> George J Kunze
> 
Well okay then, I guess I can forgive you about poor Irma. <<G>>

Martin

In a message dated 2/26/2002 11:57:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mwesley250@... writes:


> Well okay then, I guess I can forgive you about poor Irma

Thank you.
George


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> Time will render the proper verdict on their decision. In the 
meantime I bet
> they don't turn down any ads by photographers selling digital 
prints!
> 

And obviously they value digital B&W images enough to use them for 
sales purposes on their web site.  Guess they could fax the images to 
shoppers.  No wait, thats digital too.   Hmmm?  What to do...

Wait a minute.  I read Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" as stating that, in 
his - the editor/publisher's - opinion, black and white's "connection 
with the past" merits the policy that B&W "will not widen our 
editorial scope to include Digital photography."  Rasmussen 
continues: "This is not a judgement reflecting the worth of 
practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity - it's 
impossible to please both sides in the same forum."  

I see nothing in the article (p. 7 of the April 2002 issue) that says 
that digital lacks the tradition, heritage, and other qualities that 
collectors are looking for.  Rasmussen is clear - in his opinion, 
digital is based more on technology and conventional photography is 
based on craftsmanship.  The magazine's concentration on conventional 
photography is "a decision in consideration of constancy."

Regardless of the possibly misguided basis for his opinion, he's 
entitled to it.  He does say that "we may from time to time 
reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of developments 
in the Digital arena."  Thus, there is nothing in the article that 
suggests that it will not have any articles or feature any discussion 
of digital prints.  

Face it folks, despite the raves of enlightened practioners, as of 
February 27, 2002, there is still quite a bit of skepticism - and not 
without reason - about digital photography.  The leading - and, as 
far as I know, only - magazine devoted to black and white photography 
(and a damn fine publication) is not so much dictating standards but 
is rather reflecting popular opinion.

Besides posting here - which is a bit like preaching to the choir - 
perhaps a letter to the editor would be more effective in getting 
Rasmussen's ear and the issue before the collecting public.  That 
will ensure that, at least for the July 2002 issue, there will be a 
discussion - not a monologue - on the merits of collecting digital 
photography. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" 
<steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> Good points Paul.  
> 
> I especially think the archival nature of partially toned (and 
possibly those improperly processed) prints is a key issue....but not 
for them.  
> 
> Steadman
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Paul Roark 
>   To: DigitalB&WPrint 
>   Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:01 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
> 
> 
>   Steadman Uhlich wrote:
> 
>   > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital 
prints do
>   not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other 
qualities he thinks
>   important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" 
and not in
>   a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have 
any
>   articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.
> 
>   It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant 
letters to the
>   magazine that will get them into more of a corner.
> 
>   For example, I'd want to know if silver prints that went through 
a digital
>   step are covered.  For example, what of the Lens Work type images.
> 
>   Next, I'd want to know how collectors or the magazine can tell if 
there was
>   a digital step if the process.  Can they really police the 
policy?  Do they
>   have affidavits from all their advertisers and the photographers 
and others
>   whose photos are published?
> 
>   I wonder what the other attributes of digital are that are of 
concern?
>   Maybe they could be specific.
> 
>   If longevity and light fastness is one factor, how do they know 
that the
>   photos that are featured and advertised are properly processed?  
If they are
>   not the carbon pigments on good paper is probably more archival.
> 
>   In fact, if the partial toning that we silver printers were 
doing, it turns
>   out that the images are not really that archival.  I think I'll 
be able to
>   measure the yellowing of  partially-toned silver prints.  It may 
be low, but
>   I hope to match it -- in fact non-warming paper (no brighteners) 
may do it
>   already.
> 
>   We must confess that the easy of making many copies is a problem 
for any
>   machine print.  Collectors want an object that cannot be made in 
quantity.
>   How one raises prices, all else being equal, is to limit output.  
From an
>   economics perspective, the control that a monopolist has is 
limiting output.
>   It is only from that action that prices rise.  So, out put 
limitations is a
>   key to collectible value.  But, how many prints to A. 
Adams "make?"  I think
>   over 80,000, but this is hearsay.
> 
>   So, there are issues we can work with here.  If the magazines' 
policy
>   becomes self-defeating, they'll change.
> 
>   Paul
>   http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - Include your full name with your message.
>   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep them short.
>   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
or "flames."
>   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

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

Couldn't agree more... My letter to the editor cancelling my 
subscription is in draft mode as we speak... As will be a letter to a 
few of the largest advertisers in the last issue.

I think this is a big blow if we let it pass...or an opportunity if 
we can raise some cyber ruckus over it.

Let's make sure some of the comments posted here find their way to 
media stations who might be interested.

BWDigital_the_print stages protest over luddite treatment by myopic 
publisher... Etc, etc..

Tom O'Connell

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., John Labovitz <johnl@j...> 
wrote:
> On 2/26/02 3:01 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant 
letters to the
> > magazine that will get them into more of a corner.
> 
> Good ideas, those.
> 
> In addition, those of us who subscribe to and/or advertise with B&W 
might
> let the editor know that we'll withdraw our support by cancelling
> subscriptions or choosing other vehicles for advertising.  I'm sure 
that
> being a "premium" magazine that is probably largely supported by
> subscriptions, B&W might look at the situation a bit differently if 
it
> realizes that at least some of its support comes from the very 
digital
> printmakers they are now alienating.
> 
> (I haven't yet received my issue, so I don't want to comment 
specifically on

> what B&W is trying to say.)
> 
> -- 
> John Labovitz
> johnl@j...
> www.johnlabovitz.com

My first salvo...
-------------------------
Hello there-

I recently purchased a subscription to your magazine after hearing 
about it in the "Black & White, the Print" discussion group on Yahoo.

I am a long time wet darkroom printer and avid collector of vintage 
BW photos who recently discovered the beauty and incredible quality 
of sophisticated digital printing. Your announced policy to ban 
examples of and articles about digital printing is, in my opinion, so 
ignorant and bigoted that I simply can no longer enjoy your 
publication.

As with other luddites, the loss is yours, not mine.

Please stop sending me the magazine immediately and refund the unused 
portion of the subscription amount...this is certainly not the 
magazine I thought I was subscribing to.

Good luck...

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" 
<steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> Good points Paul.  
> 
> I especially think the archival nature of partially toned (and 
possibly those improperly processed) prints is a key issue....but not 
for them.  
> 
> Steadman
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Paul Roark 
>   To: DigitalB&WPrint 
>   Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:01 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
> 
> 
>   Steadman Uhlich wrote:
> 
>   > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital 
prints do
>   not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other 
qualities he thinks
>   important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine" 
and not in
>   a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have 
any
>   articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.
> 
>   It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant 
letters to the
>   magazine that will get them into more of a corner.
> 
>   For example, I'd want to know if silver prints that went through 
a digital
>   step are covered.  For example, what of the Lens Work type images.
> 
>   Next, I'd want to know how collectors or the magazine can tell if 
there was
>   a digital step if the process.  Can they really police the 
policy?  Do they
>   have affidavits from all their advertisers and the photographers 
and others
>   whose photos are published?
> 
>   I wonder what the other attributes of digital are that are of 
concern?
>   Maybe they could be specific.
> 
>   If longevity and light fastness is one factor, how do they know 
that the
>   photos that are featured and advertised are properly processed?  
If they are
>   not the carbon pigments on good paper is probably more archival.
> 
>   In fact, if the partial toning that we silver printers were 
doing, it turns
>   out that the images are not really that archival.  I think I'll 
be able to
>   measure the yellowing of  partially-toned silver prints.  It may 
be low, but
>   I hope to match it -- in fact non-warming paper (no brighteners) 
may do it
>   already.
> 
>   We must confess that the easy of making many copies is a problem 
for any
>   machine print.  Collectors want an object that cannot be made in 
quantity.
>   How one raises prices, all else being equal, is to limit output.  
From an
>   economics perspective, the control that a monopolist has is 
limiting output.
>   It is only from that action that prices rise.  So, out put 
limitations is a
>   key to collectible value.  But, how many prints to A. 
Adams "make?"  I think
>   over 80,000, but this is hearsay.
> 
>   So, there are issues we can work with here.  If the magazines' 
policy
>   becomes self-defeating, they'll change.
> 
>   Paul
>   http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - Include your full name with your message.
>   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep them short.
>   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
or "flames."
>   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

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

Wise, wise words.
I think that letting them know how many people are in this forum may be a
better policy than simply unsubscribing from their magazine. Maybe they'd
change their mind and reconsider the statement that "digital is based more
on technology and conventional photography is based on craftsmanship"
(exactly the same reasoning applies to painting compared to analog
photography, by the way).
And if a magazine ain't enough, they might even start thinking about
creating a new one...
 
Alessandro Pardi

-----Original Message-----
From: earregardless [mailto:earregardless@...]
Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2002 07.17
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


Wait a minute.  I read Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" as stating that, in 
his - the editor/publisher's - opinion, black and white's "connection 
with the past" merits the policy that B&W "will not widen our 
editorial scope to include Digital photography."  Rasmussen 
continues: "This is not a judgement reflecting the worth of 
practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity - it's 
impossible to please both sides in the same forum."  

I see nothing in the article (p. 7 of the April 2002 issue) that says 
that digital lacks the tradition, heritage, and other qualities that 
collectors are looking for.  Rasmussen is clear - in his opinion, 
digital is based more on technology and conventional photography is 
based on craftsmanship.  The magazine's concentration on conventional 
photography is "a decision in consideration of constancy."

Regardless of the possibly misguided basis for his opinion, he's 
entitled to it.  He does say that "we may from time to time 
reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of developments 
in the Digital arena."  Thus, there is nothing in the article that 
suggests that it will not have any articles or feature any discussion 
of digital prints.  

Face it folks, despite the raves of enlightened practioners, as of 
February 27, 2002, there is still quite a bit of skepticism - and not 
without reason - about digital photography.  The leading - and, as 
far as I know, only - magazine devoted to black and white photography 
(and a damn fine publication) is not so much dictating standards but 
is rather reflecting popular opinion.

Besides posting here - which is a bit like preaching to the choir - 
perhaps a letter to the editor would be more effective in getting 
Rasmussen's ear and the issue before the collecting public.  That 
will ensure that, at least for the July 2002 issue, there will be a 
discussion - not a monologue - on the merits of collecting digital 
photography. 





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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

> "Vintage Digital Prints" you ask? 

What about using that very well known American term "Vetran" prints (:-)

The question to be answered is this.....

Will this reflection of editorial policy increase his magazines readership,
keep it the same or lessen it.

If 1 is not the answer then he has made a serious editorial error, and a
somewhat self indulgent one at that. I would suggest that the main job of a
magazine editor is to promothe the image, of the publication in question, to
such effect that sales volumes reflect the philosophy in an entirely
positive way..

I cannot for the life of me see how any editorial denigrating injet as a
non-craftsman process could possibly result in an increase in readership or
subscription level.

By the way and in my experience, all the best editors of photographic
magazines usually attempt, at the very least, to project a technology
neutral image, which in effect means showing an even hand on any and all
issues of a technologically contentious nature.


----- Original Message -----
From: "earregardless" <earregardless@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


> Wait a minute.  I read Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" as stating that, in
> his - the editor/publisher's - opinion, black and white's "connection
> with the past" merits the policy that B&W "will not widen our
> editorial scope to include Digital photography."  Rasmussen
> continues: "This is not a judgement reflecting the worth of
> practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity - it's
> impossible to please both sides in the same forum."
>
> I see nothing in the article (p. 7 of the April 2002 issue) that says
> that digital lacks the tradition, heritage, and other qualities that
> collectors are looking for.  Rasmussen is clear - in his opinion,
> digital is based more on technology and conventional photography is
> based on craftsmanship.  The magazine's concentration on conventional
> photography is "a decision in consideration of constancy."
>
> Regardless of the possibly misguided basis for his opinion, he's
> entitled to it.  He does say that "we may from time to time
> reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of developments
> in the Digital arena."  Thus, there is nothing in the article that
> suggests that it will not have any articles or feature any discussion
> of digital prints.
>
> Face it folks, despite the raves of enlightened practioners, as of
> February 27, 2002, there is still quite a bit of skepticism - and not
> without reason - about digital photography.  The leading - and, as
> far as I know, only - magazine devoted to black and white photography
> (and a damn fine publication) is not so much dictating standards but
> is rather reflecting popular opinion.
>
> Besides posting here - which is a bit like preaching to the choir -
> perhaps a letter to the editor would be more effective in getting
> Rasmussen's ear and the issue before the collecting public.  That
> will ensure that, at least for the July 2002 issue, there will be a
> discussion - not a monologue - on the merits of collecting digital
> photography.
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich"
> <steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> > Good points Paul.
> >
> > I especially think the archival nature of partially toned (and
> possibly those improperly processed) prints is a key issue....but not
> for them.
> >
> > Steadman
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Paul Roark
> >   To: DigitalB&WPrint
> >   Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:01 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
> >
> >
> >   Steadman Uhlich wrote:
> >
> >   > In his letter to readers, the editor in chief says that digital
> prints do
> >   not have the tradition, heritage, and well....some other
> qualities he thinks
> >   important for collectors...given that they are made by "machine"
> and not in
> >   a traditional manner.  So...from now on...this mag will not have
> any
> >   articles or feature any discussion of digital prints.
> >
> >   It seems to me there are a couple of approaches that warrant
> letters to the
> >   magazine that will get them into more of a corner.
> >
> >   For example, I'd want to know if silver prints that went through
> a digital
> >   step are covered.  For example, what of the Lens Work type images.
> >
> >   Next, I'd want to know how collectors or the magazine can tell if
> there was
> >   a digital step if the process.  Can they really police the
> policy?  Do they
> >   have affidavits from all their advertisers and the photographers
> and others
> >   whose photos are published?
> >
> >   I wonder what the other attributes of digital are that are of
> concern?
> >   Maybe they could be specific.
> >
> >   If longevity and light fastness is one factor, how do they know
> that the
> >   photos that are featured and advertised are properly processed?
> If they are
> >   not the carbon pigments on good paper is probably more archival.
> >
> >   In fact, if the partial toning that we silver printers were
> doing, it turns
> >   out that the images are not really that archival.  I think I'll
> be able to
> >   measure the yellowing of  partially-toned silver prints.  It may
> be low, but
> >   I hope to match it -- in fact non-warming paper (no brighteners)
> may do it
> >   already.
> >
> >   We must confess that the easy of making many copies is a problem
> for any
> >   machine print.  Collectors want an object that cannot be made in
> quantity.
> >   How one raises prices, all else being equal, is to limit output.
> >From an
> >   economics perspective, the control that a monopolist has is
> limiting output.
> >   It is only from that action that prices rise.  So, out put
> limitations is a
> >   key to collectible value.  But, how many prints to A.
> Adams "make?"  I think
> >   over 80,000, but this is hearsay.
> >
> >   So, there are issues we can work with here.  If the magazines'
> policy
> >   becomes self-defeating, they'll change.
> >
> >   Paul
> >   http://www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >               ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page
> is at:
> >
> >   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >   Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >   - Include your full name with your message.
> >   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> >   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> >   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks
> or "flames."
> >   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- Dickbo <Dickbo@...> wrote:
> By the way and in my experience, all the best
> editors of photographic
> magazines usually attempt, at the very least, to
> project a technology
> neutral image, which in effect means showing an even
> hand on any and all
> issues of a technologically contentious nature.


Maybe this guy was getting pressure from outside
sources to "cut off" digital output? If the magazine
is truly about collecting b/w photography, then that
does seem to echo the prevailing opinion of "serious"
collectors.

Their site mentions a brief tidbit in the Current
Issue section:

http://bandwmag.com/

Again, given what I saw at AIPAD, it wouldn't surprise
me if they took this stance, (as silly as it seems).
Maybe they're trying to stay on the high road, and
emphasize GSP and vintage processes.

This will certainly be interesting to watch.

MTucker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

I am reluctant to be pulled into this thread, however I would like to defend
the position of the magazine and the photography dealers at AIPAD that have
not included digital images.

I should start by saying that my defense of the "non-digital" photo world
has nothing to due with my use or enthusiasm for digital processes.

1. There is very little (in comparison) critical and intellectual discourse
about the nature of the digital image.

2. There are very few individuals that have established themselves as
"masters" of the medium - and certainly no one exists that can say that they
have devoted a full artistic career to the use of digital imagery.

3. Camera based images have existed for centuries before the invention of
photography and we must consider that medium practiced by individuals on the
list is as different from photography as photography was from all the images
created using the camera obscura that came before.

4. Photography deserves the right to stand on its own as a distinct medium -
respected for the great difficulty that photographic artists go through to
control a medium with so many limitations. My favorite definition of
photography is that "it is a medium of limitations."

5. Finally we should avoid the trap of comparing (in that we seek approval
of these images in the context with photography) the digital image with the
photograph - I believe there is little of value or potential down that road.

Wendel

At 04:10 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:

>This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
>send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
>protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
>offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
>we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
>they walk by on the way to lunch.
>
>Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
>question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
>your arms. The time is now.
>

Good points Alessandro.  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alessandro Pardi 
  To: 'DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com' 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:57 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  Wise, wise words.
  I think that letting them know how many people are in this forum may be a
  better policy than simply unsubscribing from their magazine. Maybe they'd
  change their mind and reconsider the statement that "digital is based more
  on technology and conventional photography is based on craftsmanship"
  (exactly the same reasoning applies to painting compared to analog
  photography, by the way).
  And if a magazine ain't enough, they might even start thinking about
  creating a new one...

  Alessandro Pardi

  -----Original Message-----
  From: earregardless [mailto:earregardless@...]
  Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2002 07.17
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  Wait a minute.  I read Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" as stating that, in 
  his - the editor/publisher's - opinion, black and white's "connection 
  with the past" merits the policy that B&W "will not widen our 
  editorial scope to include Digital photography."  Rasmussen 
  continues: "This is not a judgement reflecting the worth of 
  practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity - it's 
  impossible to please both sides in the same forum."  

  I see nothing in the article (p. 7 of the April 2002 issue) that says 
  that digital lacks the tradition, heritage, and other qualities that 
  collectors are looking for.  Rasmussen is clear - in his opinion, 
  digital is based more on technology and conventional photography is 
  based on craftsmanship.  The magazine's concentration on conventional 
  photography is "a decision in consideration of constancy."

  Regardless of the possibly misguided basis for his opinion, he's 
  entitled to it.  He does say that "we may from time to time 
  reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of developments 
  in the Digital arena."  Thus, there is nothing in the article that 
  suggests that it will not have any articles or feature any discussion 
  of digital prints.  

  Face it folks, despite the raves of enlightened practioners, as of 
  February 27, 2002, there is still quite a bit of skepticism - and not 
  without reason - about digital photography.  The leading - and, as 
  far as I know, only - magazine devoted to black and white photography 
  (and a damn fine publication) is not so much dictating standards but 
  is rather reflecting popular opinion.

  Besides posting here - which is a bit like preaching to the choir - 
  perhaps a letter to the editor would be more effective in getting 
  Rasmussen's ear and the issue before the collecting public.  That 
  will ensure that, at least for the July 2002 issue, there will be a 
  discussion - not a monologue - on the merits of collecting digital 
  photography. 





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


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

You have to remember that the photo gallery establishment is 
incredibly conservative. It has been my conclusion for a long time 
that if you want to show experimental photographic work you don't go 
to a photo gallery to show it.  Go to a gallery that is run by 
painting and printmaking people.  Anyone attending the recent East 
and West Coast shows can verify that an extremely small percentage of 
inkjet prints were shown. I think this magazine is just reflecting 
what is with that market.  However, I think they will all come along 
eventually...most are survivors.  It will simply take a few of their 
favorite photographers to come out with a portfolio of high quality 
inkjet prints and then the spigot will be open for good.
-- 

b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a

billagee@...
http://www.redsilver.com
http://www.billageestudio.com

Letter to B&W Magazine.....

Gentlemen:

I sat with brow raised after reading that your magazine would not be 
publishing digitally produced b/w images. That is extremely 
disappointing and short sighted in my opinion. Does that mean that 
B&W will not publish this year's Pulitzer Prize Winner? Or winners in 
the future? Have the publishers looked to see how many new film 
cameras the manufacturers have introduced this year? Digital cameras?

Good photography must transcend the bounds of the medium. Capturing 
an image on silver halide particles or silicon chips is irrelevant. 
The message and artist's vision is what is important.

I can no longer subscribe to a magazine that is short sighted and 
will not consider any new medium without considering the art.

My sincerest apologies.

Michael J. Kravit, AIA
Architect/Photographer
Kravit Architectural Associates, Inc.
902 Clint Moore Road
Suite 136
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
561-893-0042

You can always re-subscribe. Publishers and advertisers care only 
about hard numbers. Nothing gets a magazines attention more than 
cancelled subscriptions...for every person who really cares enough to 
go to the trouble of cancelling there are probably 100s who feel the 
same...publishers and advertisers know that.

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alessandro Pardi 
<alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> Wise, wise words.
> I think that letting them know how many people are in this forum 
may be a
> better policy than simply unsubscribing from their magazine. Maybe 
they'd
> change their mind and reconsider the statement that "digital is 
based more
> on technology and conventional photography is based on 
craftsmanship"
> (exactly the same reasoning applies to painting compared to analog
> photography, by the way).
> And if a magazine ain't enough, they might even start thinking about
> creating a new one...
>  
> Alessandro Pardi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: earregardless [mailto:earregardless@y...]
> Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2002 07.17
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.  I read Rasmussen's "Opening Shot" as stating that, 
in 
> his - the editor/publisher's - opinion, black and 
white's "connection 
> with the past" merits the policy that B&W "will not widen our 
> editorial scope to include Digital photography."  Rasmussen 
> continues: "This is not a judgement reflecting the worth of 
> practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity - it's 
> impossible to please both sides in the same forum."  
> 
> I see nothing in the article (p. 7 of the April 2002 issue) that 
says 
> that digital lacks the tradition, heritage, and other qualities 
that 
> collectors are looking for.  Rasmussen is clear - in his opinion, 
> digital is based more on technology and conventional photography is 
> based on craftsmanship.  The magazine's concentration on 
conventional 
> photography is "a decision in consideration of constancy."
> 
> Regardless of the possibly misguided basis for his opinion, he's 
> entitled to it.  He does say that "we may from time to time 
> reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of 
developments 
> in the Digital arena."  Thus, there is nothing in the article that 
> suggests that it will not have any articles or feature any 
discussion 
> of digital prints.  
> 
> Face it folks, despite the raves of enlightened practioners, as of 
> February 27, 2002, there is still quite a bit of skepticism - and 
not 
> without reason - about digital photography.  The leading - and, as 
> far as I know, only - magazine devoted to black and white 
photography 
> (and a damn fine publication) is not so much dictating standards 
but 

> is rather reflecting popular opinion.
> 
> Besides posting here - which is a bit like preaching to the choir - 
> perhaps a letter to the editor would be more effective in getting 
> Rasmussen's ear and the issue before the collecting public.  That 
> will ensure that, at least for the July 2002 issue, there will be a 
> discussion - not a monologue - on the merits of collecting digital 
> photography. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Convervative may be a polite description... Have you been to their 
website?

You not only cannot subscribe online, THEIR EMAIL ACCOUNT IS AT 
AOL !!! (bnwmagag@... )

Now, I'm no snob about people using AOL (though for anyone involved 
in graphics, using the AOL browser is a nightmare), but for a 
business to use an AOL address for conducting business... Wow... Just 
at a loss for words... how hard is it in this day and age to have 
someone host an inexpensive web address for you????

Suffice it to say that this is technology challenged situation !!!

Tom O'Connell





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Agee <billagee@r...> 
wrote:
> You have to remember that the photo gallery establishment is 
> incredibly conservative. It has been my conclusion for a long time 
> that if you want to show experimental photographic work you don't 
go 
> to a photo gallery to show it.  Go to a gallery that is run by 
> painting and printmaking people.  Anyone attending the recent East 
> and West Coast shows can verify that an extremely small percentage 
of 
> inkjet prints were shown. I think this magazine is just reflecting 
> what is with that market.  However, I think they will all come 
along 
> eventually...most are survivors.  It will simply take a few of 
their 

> favorite photographers to come out with a portfolio of high quality 
> inkjet prints and then the spigot will be open for good.
> -- 
> 
> b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
> c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a
> 
> billagee@r...
> http://www.redsilver.com
> http://www.billageestudio.com

At 04:10 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
>send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
>protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
>offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
>we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
>they walk by on the way to lunch.
>
>Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
>question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
>your arms. The time is now.
>

Guys,

 They deserve the opportunity to test a rapidly narrowing niche market and
sink or swim.  In the final analysis marketing gimmicks are what sell prints
and they know it. Whining about that is silly.  That they use modern methods
to print their rag and quibbling about chemical darkroom processes also
being "mechanical" misses the point.  

Shut up and make art,

AZ
 
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

Alan-

I think you miss the point... I agree that whining is silly... This 
is a real opportunity to tell the world how great digital printing 
has become.

Can a challenge be issued? To this clown? Is there a forum to debate 
the issues? That will get wider understanding and acknowledgement of 
what we are doing here?

We are not just photographers and printers... it may sound pompous, 
but we are all zealots for a revolutionary new process that is 
advancing the art and craft for all photographers (not replacing, but 
advancing).

Can we come out of this with something postitive???

Tom O'Connell

TomOC@...
www.thomasoconnell.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alan Zinn <AZinn@n...> 
wrote:
> At 04:10 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
> >send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
> >protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
> >offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
> >we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
> >they walk by on the way to lunch.
> >
> >Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
> >question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
> >your arms. The time is now.
> >
> 
> Guys,
> 
>  They deserve the opportunity to test a rapidly narrowing niche 
market and
> sink or swim.  In the final analysis marketing gimmicks are what 
sell prints
> and they know it. Whining about that is silly.  That they use 
modern methods
> to print their rag and quibbling about chemical darkroom processes 
also

> being "mechanical" misses the point.  
> 
> Shut up and make art,
> 
> AZ
>  
> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> 
> www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
>          or
> keyword.com lookaround

In a message dated 2/27/2002 11:46:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
michael.kravit@... writes:


>  Capturing 
> an image on silver halide particles or silicon chips is irrelevant. 
> The message and artist's vision is what is important.
> 

Hey, maybe we should drop a line to the writers magazines, asking them to 
follow suit. After all, a story written on a keyboard must be inherently 
inferior to one written with a pencil. As a matter of fact, even the 
modernist technology of a pen invalidates anything a writer would like to 
say. LONG LIVE THE PENCIL!!!
George J Kunze


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

In a message dated 2/27/2002 12:03:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tomoc@... writes:


>  Have you been to their 
> website?
> 

No I haven't. Can somebody please post a url ?
Thanks in advance,
George J Kunze


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

Maybe they think they'll lose a few readers by dropping digital, but not as
many as they would by keeping it. If collectors are as conservative as it
seems, I bet a few of them already complained about digital stuff taking too
much room on the magazine.
 
Alessandro Pardi

-----Original Message-----
From: Dickbo [mailto:Dickbo@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 13:56
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


The question to be answered is this.....

Will this reflection of editorial policy increase his magazines readership,
keep it the same or lessen it.

<snip> 

I cannot for the life of me see how any editorial denigrating injet as a
non-craftsman process could possibly result in an increase in readership or
subscription level.




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

It's true they only care about numbers, but 1,000 potential new readers may
be worth more than 10 unsubscribers.
 
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: tomoc [mailto:tomoc@...]


You can always re-subscribe. Publishers and advertisers care only 
about hard numbers. Nothing gets a magazines attention more than 
cancelled subscriptions...for every person who really cares enough to 
go to the trouble of cancelling there are probably 100s who feel the 
same...publishers and advertisers know that.

Tom O'Connell

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alessandro Pardi 
<alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> Wise, wise words.
> I think that letting them know how many people are in this forum 
may be a
> better policy than simply unsubscribing from their magazine. Maybe 
they'd
> change their mind and reconsider the statement that "digital is 
based more
> on technology and conventional photography is based on 
craftsmanship"
> (exactly the same reasoning applies to painting compared to analog
> photography, by the way).
> And if a magazine ain't enough, they might even start thinking about
> creating a new one...
>  
> Alessandro Pardi




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

Only that somewhere a village is missing their idiot.

Jer

> Despite this...at least one of the profiled photographers says in his bio how important the traditional process is to him and his photography....and then at the bottom of the page offers to sell his prints as "giclees starting at....$xxx"  so...
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Steadman

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mark Tucker" <mtucker508@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

> Maybe this guy was getting pressure from outside
> sources to "cut off" digital output? If the magazine
> is truly about collecting b/w photography, then that
> does seem to echo the prevailing opinion of "serious"
> collectors.
>
> Their site mentions a brief tidbit in the Current
> Issue section:
>
> http://bandwmag.com/
>
> Again, given what I saw at AIPAD, it wouldn't surprise
> me if they took this stance, (as silly as it seems).
> Maybe they're trying to stay on the high road, and
> emphasize GSP and vintage processes.
>
> This will certainly be interesting to watch

Indeed!
Are you talking about USA collectors or all collectors world wide, or
perhaps only the collectors who read the magazine.

A study of collecting in general would not support your proposition but then
I am ignorant of USA collector practices.

What you are saying is that these estasblishments are influenced more by the
medium and apparantly not at all by the message. Or is it that in  the USA
all digital print makers are shockingly bad cretive people.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Agee" <billagee@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


> You have to remember that the photo gallery establishment is
> incredibly conservative. It has been my conclusion for a long time
> that if you want to show experimental photographic work you don't go
> to a photo gallery to show it.  Go to a gallery that is run by
> painting and printmaking people.  Anyone attending the recent East
> and West Coast shows can verify that an extremely small percentage of
> inkjet prints were shown. I think this magazine is just reflecting
> what is with that market.  However, I think they will all come along
> eventually...most are survivors.  It will simply take a few of their
> favorite photographers to come out with a portfolio of high quality
> inkjet prints and then the spigot will be open for good.
> --
>
> b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
> c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a
>
> billagee@...
> http://www.redsilver.com
> http://www.billageestudio.com
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Consider that any "salt print" or Daguerreotype will be collectable because of method...more so than image.  

Collectors collect for investment and whim.  Seldom for esthetics.  (ok..that was just an opinion...wink)

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dickbo 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  What you are saying is that these estasblishments are influenced more by the
  medium and apparantly not at all by the message. Or is it that in  the USA
  all digital print makers are shockingly bad cretive people.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Bill Agee" <billagee@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  > You have to remember that the photo gallery establishment is
  > incredibly conservative. It has been my conclusion for a long time
  > that if you want to show experimental photographic work you don't go
  > to a photo gallery to show it.  Go to a gallery that is run by
  > painting and printmaking people.  Anyone attending the recent East
  > and West Coast shows can verify that an extremely small percentage of
  > inkjet prints were shown. I think this magazine is just reflecting
  > what is with that market.  However, I think they will all come along
  > eventually...most are survivors.  It will simply take a few of their
  > favorite photographers to come out with a portfolio of high quality
  > inkjet prints and then the spigot will be open for good.
  > --
  >
  > b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
  > c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a
  >
  > billagee@...
  > http://www.redsilver.com
  > http://www.billageestudio.com
  >
  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
  other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  >
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  >
  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > - Include your full name with your message.
  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  them short.
  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  resources on the homepage.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >
  >



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

>...and certainly no one exists that can
> say that they
> have devoted a full artistic career to the use of digital imagery.

Well, hum.  I've been involved in "digital imagery" since the mid 70's, and
I'm 44...and certainly have been using digital imagery for my full artistic
career.  Now, that doesn't mean I've done nothing BUT digital, but I don't
know that what you say is entirely true.

Austin

Alan, 

Very good posting below with interesting points.  

Just for the record...I am a Capricorn  (wink)  

Hey guys....lets keep this thread friendly...(if opinionated) and not decline in communications...This is a topic that may affect us all so lets have some community spirit here. 

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alan Zinn 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:40 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  At 09:38 AM 2/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
  >I am reluctant to be pulled into this thread, however I would like to defend
  >the position of the magazine and the photography dealers at AIPAD that have
  >not included digital images.
  >
  >I should start by saying that my defense of the "non-digital" photo world
  >has nothing to due with my use or enthusiasm for digital processes.
  >
  >1. There is very little (in comparison) critical and intellectual discourse
  >about the nature of the digital image.
  >
  >2. There are very few individuals that have established themselves as
  >"masters" of the medium - and certainly no one exists that can say that they
  >have devoted a full artistic career to the use of digital imagery.
  >
  >3. Camera based images have existed for centuries before the invention of
  >photography and we must consider that medium practiced by individuals on the
  >list is as different from photography as photography was from all the images
  >created using the camera obscura that came before.
  >
  >4. Photography deserves the right to stand on its own as a distinct medium -
  >respected for the great difficulty that photographic artists go through to
  >control a medium with so many limitations. My favorite definition of
  >photography is that "it is a medium of limitations."
  >
  >5. Finally we should avoid the trap of comparing (in that we seek approval
  >of these images in the context with photography) the digital image with the
  >photograph - I believe there is little of value or potential down that road.
  >
  >Wendel
  >
  >At 04:10 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
  >>This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
  >>send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
  >>protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
  >>offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
  >>we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
  >>they walk by on the way to lunch.
  >>
  >>Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
  >>question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
  >>your arms. The time is now.
  >>
  >

  Wendel,

  I feel like dismissing your post as one hundred percent nonsense and leaving
  it there. BUT....

  That camera obscuras were used before the fixed image has nothing to do with
  photography. There was nothing remotely like photography before photography.
  Read Batchen's "Burning with Desire" for one of many helpful books that
  clear up that issue. 

  Why make a distinction between digital printing and the dozens of other
  methods of making an image from film?  One could privilege any method of
  printing in that way. 

  There are no masters of the digital print? How can you know that? Even if
  that were true, do collectors collect the work of printers or photographers?
  There are lots of poorly made prints by notable photographers starting with
  AA - check out the 100th birthday show. 

  Have you noticed how easy digital printing isn't? I put as much blood sweat
  and tears into preparing an digital image for ink jet printing as I did in
  the damn dark with the film. I'm good in the dark too. Even so, on a craft
  continuum where do we begin devaluing one technique over the other.  I have
  find that the best dark room workers reduce their methods to the absolute
  fail-safe level of production. No art, just science. I'm convinced digital
  printing is sorcery and only those born with a special sign can master it. 

  I don't know what you mean about seeking the same approval for a digital
  print as a chemical photograph. Getting others to value it for its material
  qualities? For its craft? Certainly you can't mean aesthetic merit!
  Idependent of the image itself each printing technique is valued for its
  intrinsic (or monitary) uniqueness. 

  AZ








  Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

  www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
           or
  keyword.com lookaround


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

> That camera obscuras were used before the fixed image has nothing
> to do with
> photography. There was nothing remotely like photography before
> photography.
> Read Batchen's "Burning with Desire" for one of many helpful books that
> clear up that issue.

Alan;

My point is that we should consider the history of the camera's impact on
the way artist's see the world - I have read Batchen and I don't think it is
at odds with my concerns. If we agree or not Hockney make makes interesting
comments on this issue in his latest.

> Why make a distinction between digital printing and the dozens of other
> methods of making an image from film?  One could privilege any method of
> printing in that way.

The reason for my distinction is that digital imaging offers the artist a
flexibility that does not exist in photography. That is not good or bad, but
it is different. And I guess that I am reluctant to believe that there is
some sort of photographic conspiracy against digital prints or images but
rather a recognition of the difference between the two.

With regard to "seeking approval" I only meant that there seemed to be a lot
of disappointment here in the list with regard to the decision of B&W
Magazine or the presence of digital images at AIPAD.

But I could be completely wrong...it's just my observation.

Wendel

> >...and certainly no one exists that can
> > say that they
> > have devoted a full artistic career to the use of digital imagery.
>
> Well, hum.  I've been involved in "digital imagery" since the mid
> 70's, and
> I'm 44...and certainly have been using digital imagery for my
> full artistic
> career.  Now, that doesn't mean I've done nothing BUT digital, but I don't
> know that what you say is entirely true.
>
> Austin

Austin;

You may be right - I don't know how long a career really is but I had people
like DeCarava, Steglitz, Cunningham and Alavrez Bravo (he just turned 100 by
the way) in mind.

I started (with digital images) nearly a decade after you did but in the
last fifteen years it seems that the potential of the medium has changed so
much that with the exception of the "pixel" there is little that is the same
today. With the artist's I mentioned above it seems that the fundamental
possibilities of the medium were rather stable throughout long periods,
allowing them to create work that reflects a deep understanding of the
expressive potential of photography. I am not saying that photography did
not change or improve, but rather that it's possible to track longer periods
of artistic engagement. Would this list (I mean a group of people serious
about finely printed monochrome digital images) exist even ten years ago?

My comments were not meant to agitate or aggravate, only to say that the
scale of time is a critical component for acceptance.

Wendel

Indeed, and surely all their photographic prints must have been taken on a
camera that did NOT have auto-anything, and they used a light-meter and a
slide-rule thing to convert their candelas reading into an exposure.

Hmmm. It really is too easy to make them sound rediculous ;)

<sidenote; for some reason, I actually do think that there is some 'romance'
to the use of large format, some sense of 'endeavour'. But then again, I've
seen enough technically excellent tat from 5*4 and the like, to remind
myself that the end result is what is important>

Oh yes - and don't forget how environmentally friendly all those processing
chemical are! Of course, we'd have to see a fully investigated environmental
impact study to compare, say, manufacture of Pro Digital SLR / memory /
batteries over lifetime of camera with Pro Camera, film, chemicals,
potentially batteries, etc over the life of that camera! Mind you - who's
gonna use the gelatin when we don't? European Gelatin mountain, anyone???

Oh the joys of sending your printing-companie's technician into a darkroom
to poison themselves ;)

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: toomagenta@... [mailto:toomagenta@...]
> Sent: 27 February 2002 17:28
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
>
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2002 11:46:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> michael.kravit@... writes:
>
>
> >  Capturing
> > an image on silver halide particles or silicon chips is irrelevant.
> > The message and artist's vision is what is important.
> >
>
> Hey, maybe we should drop a line to the writers magazines, asking them to
> follow suit. After all, a story written on a keyboard must be inherently
> inferior to one written with a pencil. As a matter of fact, even the
> modernist technology of a pen invalidates anything a writer would like to
> say. LONG LIVE THE PENCIL!!!
> George J Kunze
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

on 2/27/02 1:04 PM, Dickbo wrote:

> What you are saying is that these estasblishments are influenced more by the
> medium and apparantly not at all by the message. Or is it that in  the USA
> all digital print makers are shockingly bad cretive people.

Dickbo,

While I enjoy your use of language and your provocative nature, must you try
to bait us poor yanks with every post? This isn't a football match you know.
Can't you find some Welch man to troll for for a fight? Some of us (clearly
not me) just come here for a smoke and a read and really would prefer NOT to
mix nationalism with printing.

Todd

In a message dated 2/27/2002 4:10:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
nigel@... writes:


> Hmmm. It really is too easy to make them sound rediculous ;)
> 

Absolutely. 
If one goes by the axiom that money is the root of all evil, the whole issue 
becomes perfectly clear. Siver printers are afraid that digital printers will 
devalue photography. Especially their photography! They are (ignorantly) 
afraid that it is easier to produce digital photography and therefore prices 
will be driven down. That is what the painters were afraid of all those years 
ago when photography emerged as an art form.
But as we all know, one can purchase a silver 8 x 10 for as low as $25 US, 
and as high as what???? thousands????  It doesn't matter, the maker can sell 
for whatever he/she wants to. Unless he/she is copying some one else's 
prints, the only market they are destroying is their own.
George J Kunze


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

At 09:38 AM 2/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>I am reluctant to be pulled into this thread, however I would like to defend
>the position of the magazine and the photography dealers at AIPAD that have
>not included digital images.
>
>I should start by saying that my defense of the "non-digital" photo world
>has nothing to due with my use or enthusiasm for digital processes.
>
>1. There is very little (in comparison) critical and intellectual discourse
>about the nature of the digital image.
>
>2. There are very few individuals that have established themselves as
>"masters" of the medium - and certainly no one exists that can say that they
>have devoted a full artistic career to the use of digital imagery.
>
>3. Camera based images have existed for centuries before the invention of
>photography and we must consider that medium practiced by individuals on the
>list is as different from photography as photography was from all the images
>created using the camera obscura that came before.
>
>4. Photography deserves the right to stand on its own as a distinct medium -
>respected for the great difficulty that photographic artists go through to
>control a medium with so many limitations. My favorite definition of
>photography is that "it is a medium of limitations."
>
>5. Finally we should avoid the trap of comparing (in that we seek approval
>of these images in the context with photography) the digital image with the
>photograph - I believe there is little of value or potential down that road.
>
>Wendel
>
>At 04:10 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>>This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
>>send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
>>protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
>>offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
>>we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
>>they walk by on the way to lunch.
>>
>>Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
>>question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
>>your arms. The time is now.
>>
>

Wendel,

I feel like dismissing your post as one hundred percent nonsense and leaving
it there. BUT....

That camera obscuras were used before the fixed image has nothing to do with
photography. There was nothing remotely like photography before photography.
Read Batchen's "Burning with Desire" for one of many helpful books that
clear up that issue. 

Why make a distinction between digital printing and the dozens of other
methods of making an image from film?  One could privilege any method of
printing in that way. 

There are no masters of the digital print? How can you know that? Even if
that were true, do collectors collect the work of printers or photographers?
There are lots of poorly made prints by notable photographers starting with
AA - check out the 100th birthday show. 

Have you noticed how easy digital printing isn't? I put as much blood sweat
and tears into preparing an digital image for ink jet printing as I did in
the damn dark with the film. I'm good in the dark too. Even so, on a craft
continuum where do we begin devaluing one technique over the other.  I have
find that the best dark room workers reduce their methods to the absolute
fail-safe level of production. No art, just science. I'm convinced digital
printing is sorcery and only those born with a special sign can master it. 

I don't know what you mean about seeking the same approval for a digital
print as a chemical photograph. Getting others to value it for its material
qualities? For its craft? Certainly you can't mean aesthetic merit!
Idependent of the image itself each printing technique is valued for its
intrinsic (or monitary) uniqueness. 

AZ







 
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

In response to this discussion, (or maybe I was
inspired by BW's decision), I duct taped a Fuji 680
polaroid back onto a Federal Express box (Small Size)
last night, and poked a small hole in it for a lens.
The depth of the Small Box is only about an inch and a
half, so the "lens" is very wide -- about like a 15 on
a Nikon. Even with the crude test hole, punched and
dug out with a number 11 xacto blade, the picture is
shockingly sharp and good. Exposure time for my
aperture is about one second in normal daylight room
light. I just pull the dark slide with my finger over
the hole, and give it about one second, then reinsert
the dark slide.

I give credit to Mr. Rasmussen of BW Magazine, for
fueling my creation. 

In pure technical terms, does a FedEx Box count as a
"machine"?... I am hoping not.

Mark Tucker
.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----

From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


> on 2/27/02 1:04 PM, Dickbo wrote:
>
> > What you are saying is that these estasblishments are influenced more by
the
> > medium and apparantly not at all by the message. Or is it that in  the
USA
> > all digital print makers are shockingly bad cretive people.
>
> Dickbo,
>
> While I enjoy your use of language and your provocative nature, must you
try
> to bait us poor yanks with every post?

It's a perfectly straightforward question so why not try an answer

>> on 2/27/02 1:04 PM, Dickbo wrote:
>> 
>>> What you are saying is that these estasblishments are influenced more by
> the
>>> medium and apparantly not at all by the message. Or is it that in  the
> USA
>>> all digital print makers are shockingly bad cretive people.
>> 
>> Dickbo,
>> 
>> While I enjoy your use of language and your provocative nature, must you
> try
>> to bait us poor yanks with every post?
> 
> It's a perfectly straightforward question so why not try an answer

I have a feeling I'll regret biting the hook tomorrow, but why do you direct
the question exclusively toward American creatives?

Todd

On 2/27/02 9:36 AM, "Alessandro Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@...>
wrote:

> Maybe they think they'll lose a few readers by dropping digital, but not as
> many as they would by keeping it. If collectors are as conservative as it
> seems, I bet a few of them already complained about digital stuff taking too
> much room on the magazine.

No offense, but I would find this hard to believe.

B&W is one of the *few* photo magazines that *doesn't* emphasize the
technical attributes (camera/film type, production process, etc.).  Their
editorial content tends to talk about the artistic process, history,
collectability, mood, aesthetics, intent, etc.

They do describe the medium/process, but usually as small captions (along
with the editioning & contact information).  In the last year or so, they've
often captioned an image as "giclee", "carbon pigment ink", "pigmented
inkjet", etc. -- in fact, as several folks have pointed out, there's
"giclee" in the very issue we've been discussing.

This is why I find their decision to be even stranger than the other pro/con
digital dialogues in other photo magazines like Camera Arts.  If B&W had
never brought up the issue in the first place via the "letters" column of
the last 3 or 4 issues, I doubt that even the most ardently anti-digital
people (even collectors) would find enough to complain about.

By the way, the LensWork magazine has been mentioned here several times.
Although they don't profess a pro- or anti-digital stance, they publish
stunning (if sometimes conservative) work, and have excellent essays and
interviews.  If any of you are cancelling your B&W subscription, you might
want to consider putting that money into LensWork's enterprise instead
(www.lenswork.com).

-- 
John Labovitz
johnl@...
www.johnlabovitz.com

> In pure technical terms, does a FedEx Box count as a
> "machine"?... I am hoping not.

I believe a Quaker Oats tube is the only box that would qualify. Gotta think
smaller, Mark. 

Todd

Regarding the stance B&W is taking, I think it's important to remember 
here that this is a magazine that is aimed at the collector and those 
in the business of selling to him, be they photographers or gallery 
managers or other. It says that right on the cover...  It is not so 
much about where photography is headed, although there is always plenty 
of information on currently working artists.  And far and away the non-
ad image content is photography in its traditional, call it 
conservative if you like, style.  One-shot glimpses of moments that 
occured in front of the lense when the shutter was tripped kinds of 
things as opposed to images that underwent a lot of compositional 
alterations after the neg was exposed, save for the occaisional 
Uelsmann, etc.  So I for one am not surprised to hear this from them, 
and I'm not particularly disappointed or threatened by it.  I don't 
look to B&W for that kind of enlightenment...  Anyone with anything on 
the ball knows that the digital movement is real and will inevitably 
affect collectors of photographs. I've already sold a number of 
carbon's to people who are savvy about the difference, they were 
thrilled with them, and I'm sure many others can attest to similar 
experience. If Rasmussen wants to ignore the significance of this 
medium, it's really his problem, not ours.  He is certainly way off 
base with the comments on "craftsmanship."  But I have to agree that in 
the final production of the image, there is a machine at work and when 
it's creating prints, it does so with ease.  THAT is what is 
threatening to him and his ilk, that some element of the "handmade" is 
being forsaken, and he is not completely wrong.  This whole PhotoShop/
inkjet phenomenon is too new to be well understood outside of those who 
practice it.  My rep, who has considerable curatorial experience in 
several large museums, has seen them now for months and, although she 
is very excited by them, still thinks that it will be some time before 
she can show them to any but the most adventureous of museum and 
gallery people. So be it. Time will demonstrate where our carbon 
pigments will fit in. When you think about it, it's a cool time to be 
alive.

I'm very much in agreement with an earlier post which stated that this 
is really more of an indication of where things are at.  The vast 
majority of sales are in traditional media. Vintage is still king, and 
as yet there are no true vintage digital's out there.  At the recent 
PhotoLA, the only digital images I saw were LightJet's and they were 
all color.  And that was confined to one or two galleries who are not 
particularly known for extensive collections of vintage work. I look 
forward to the time when I can look back and say that about that event. 
And about B&W, too...

Phil
http://philbard.com

In a message dated 2/27/2002 8:47:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
johnl@... writes:


> If any of you are cancelling your B&W subscription, you might
> want to consider putting that money into LensWork's enterprise instead
> 

I just checked out the site. They brag about no inkjet, and about how hard it 
is to produce a museum quality print in a wet darkroom.
They still cling to the notion that the money is in silver.
BTW, a friend of  mine produces silver prints after digitizing and working in 
photoshop and outputting to a negative. He has been featured in lenswork.
It's almost enough to make you want to get a 9 to 5!
George J Kunze


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

In a message dated 2/27/2002 9:07:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tflash@... writes:


> I believe a Quaker Oats tube is the only box that would qualify

Sounds like religious pictures. Where's Jesse Helms when we need him?


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

Mark, 

You have got to be one of the most talented photographers at making a camera (first the Plunger Cam and now the Fedex Box Camera) out of...well...almost nothing.  

I am so curious to see a print.  Send a scan if you will.  

Cudos for keeping the passion for catching the light alive and challenging. 

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Tucker 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


  In response to this discussion, (or maybe I was
  inspired by BW's decision), I duct taped a Fuji 680
  polaroid back onto a Federal Express box (Small Size)
  last night, and poked a small hole in it for a lens.
  The depth of the Small Box is only about an inch and a
  half, so the "lens" is very wide -- about like a 15 on
  a Nikon. Even with the crude test hole, punched and
  dug out with a number 11 xacto blade, the picture is
  shockingly sharp and good. Exposure time for my
  aperture is about one second in normal daylight room
  light. I just pull the dark slide with my finger over
  the hole, and give it about one second, then reinsert
  the dark slide.

  I give credit to Mr. Rasmussen of BW Magazine, for
  fueling my creation. 

  In pure technical terms, does a FedEx Box count as a
  "machine"?... I am hoping not.

  Mark Tucker
  .

  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
  http://greetings.yahoo.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Been a chatty bunch lately haven't you.
I have not read all the messages so pardon me.

I have met one or two of the staff of the B&W Magazine.
They are proud, perceptive, sharp minded individuals.
They are familiar with the history of photography, on some levels 
intimately.

I would much rather see one or more of the exchange collections sent 
to the publication, just like we do in our exchanges - completely 
ready for return shipping.

If I get my hands on one of the issues, to fully understand what WAS 
written I may do it myself, being confident I wouldn't be sending the 
collection into a hole.

The passions that are stirred are good, it is this sense of spirit 
which starts as a cult and creates an art form.  Participants of 
exchanges in some cases are as well versed in historical B&W as the 
staff of the publication.  It's with that, and the quality of work, 
which I would find it more interesting to put in the hands of the 
publisher/editor/staff Black And White work being produced digitally 
rather than canceling subscriptions, at this point.

Better to respond to than react.

Sincerely,
Cleavis

>  >...and certainly no one exists that can
>>  say that they
>  > have devoted a full artistic career to the use of digital imagery.

John Whitney & Sons
Charles Csuri
Larry Cuba
Nam Jun Paik
Me
and THOUSANDS of others

They don't give a hoot about shooters, and never have except as a 
source of raw material for their real business, which is print sales. 
They are as much about the practice of photography as "Variety" is 
about the practice of acting.

That, at least, is the INTENT of the magazine.

If in fact the main audience is photographers, and that audience 
evaporates in the face of B&W's sales-price-centric arrogance, is 
something that only the marketing wonks at B&W know for certain.

Maybe the cover price can survive at $20?

-- 
Kevin Bjorke
http://www.botzilla.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:36 AM

> I have a feeling I'll regret biting the hook tomorrow, but why do you
direct
> the question exclusively toward American creatives?

Simply because most of the list are American - of the USA variety - and in
any case I believe that your society is much more open to new ideas than the
very conservative British and the totally ignorant non english speaking
foreigner (:-)

George,

Lenswork, and the editor Brooks Jensen who posted a few messages here a few
months back, aren't anti-digital but they are pushing silver fiber and
photogravure as the final output. The didn't feel that there would be much
of a market for inkjet prints of their "Special Editions." I bought a couple
of their silver prints and the quality is really excellent. If I had
personal access to a 3600 dpi image setter I might be tempted myself! They
have published people who use inkjet though.

Lenswork and B&W are magazines worth subscribing to regardless of their
digital stance. They are incredible sources of B&W photographs printed in
very high quality. I really do recommend them both but don't hesitate to
write some irate letters!

Martin Wesley

----- Original Message -----
From: <toomagenta@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints


> In a message dated 2/27/2002 8:47:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> johnl@... writes:
>
>
> > If any of you are cancelling your B&W subscription, you might
> > want to consider putting that money into LensWork's enterprise instead
> >
>
> I just checked out the site. They brag about no inkjet, and about how hard
it
> is to produce a museum quality print in a wet darkroom.
> They still cling to the notion that the money is in silver.
> BTW, a friend of  mine produces silver prints after digitizing and working
in
> photoshop and outputting to a negative. He has been featured in lenswork.
> It's almost enough to make you want to get a 9 to 5!
> George J Kunze
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

on 2/28/02 1:27 AM, Dickbo wrote:

>> I have a feeling I'll regret biting the hook tomorrow, but why do you
> direct
>> the question exclusively toward American creatives?
> 
> Simply because most of the list are American - of the USA variety - and in
> any case I believe that your society is much more open to new ideas than the
> very conservative British and the totally ignorant non english speaking
> foreigner (:-)

Sorry Dickbo, I think I misread your original question/sentiment to begin
with. My mistake.

Mr Not So Smooth.

I tried the same thing with a hand-made cardbox box stuck on the front of a
Mamiya RZ67 roll film holder the other day. But my results were not
impressive. Is a 1mm hole too big? Or have I screwed up by not making room
for a tripod mount?

Fuunily enough, Steadman, it was one of your posts a few weeks back that
inspired this creation!

Anyway, guidance appreciated... I just need to figure out a way of
triggering a little button on the back, behind my box, to reengage the
winder, and I'm sorted.

I just felt this was somwehat amateur on my part though... and Mark...
anyone... please tell me someone has been rediculous enough to stick a
pinhole box on a scanning back to make me laugh. I mean that in a nice way
by the way! Mark's little cameras have struck some chords over here too!

Best,

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steadman Uhlich [mailto:steadmanuhlich@...]
> Sent: 28 February 2002 03:34
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
>
>
> Mark,
>
> You have got to be one of the most talented photographers at
> making a camera (first the Plunger Cam and now the Fedex Box
> Camera) out of...well...almost nothing.
>
> I am so curious to see a print.  Send a scan if you will.
>
> Cudos for keeping the passion for catching the light alive and
> challenging.
>
> Steadman
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Mark Tucker
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:43 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
>
>
>   In response to this discussion, (or maybe I was
>   inspired by BW's decision), I duct taped a Fuji 680
>   polaroid back onto a Federal Express box (Small Size)
>   last night, and poked a small hole in it for a lens.
>   The depth of the Small Box is only about an inch and a
>   half, so the "lens" is very wide -- about like a 15 on
>   a Nikon. Even with the crude test hole, punched and
>   dug out with a number 11 xacto blade, the picture is
>   shockingly sharp and good. Exposure time for my
>   aperture is about one second in normal daylight room
>   light. I just pull the dark slide with my finger over
>   the hole, and give it about one second, then reinsert
>   the dark slide.
>
>   I give credit to Mr. Rasmussen of BW Magazine, for
>   fueling my creation.
>
>   In pure technical terms, does a FedEx Box count as a
>   "machine"?... I am hoping not.
>
>   Mark Tucker
>   .
>
>   __________________________________________________
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
>   http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - Include your full name with your message.
>   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
>   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> subject header.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
>   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and
> the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 05:05 PM 2/27/2002 -0000, you wrote:
>Alan-
>
>I think you miss the point... I agree that whining is silly... This 
>is a real opportunity to tell the world how great digital printing 
>has become.
>
>Can a challenge be issued? To this clown? Is there a forum to debate 
>the issues? That will get wider understanding and acknowledgement of 
>what we are doing here?
>
>We are not just photographers and printers... it may sound pompous, 
>but we are all zealots for a revolutionary new process that is 
>advancing the art and craft for all photographers (not replacing, but 
>advancing).
>
>Can we come out of this with something postitive???
>
>Tom O'Connell
>
>TomOC@...
>www.thomasoconnell.com
>
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alan Zinn <AZinn@n...> 
>wrote:
>> At 04:10 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>> >This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
>> >send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
>> >protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
>> >offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
>> >we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
>> >they walk by on the way to lunch.
>> >
>> >Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
>> >question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
>> >your arms. The time is now.
>> >
>> 
>> Guys,
>> 
>>  They deserve the opportunity to test a rapidly narrowing niche 
>market and
>> sink or swim.  In the final analysis marketing gimmicks are what 
>sell prints
>> and they know it. Whining about that is silly.  That they use 
>modern methods
>> to print their rag and quibbling about chemical darkroom processes 
>also
>> being "mechanical" misses the point.  
>> 
>> Shut up and make art,
>> 
>> AZ


Tom,

The tenth of one percent of art buyers (I'm being generous) who buy fine
photo prints probably don't care much about the editorial policy of a not
that great magazine. All the other US photo mags I am aware of have not
turned up their noses at digital subjects. I'll wager that the majority of
BW subscribers and advertisers squawked to the publisher to hang on to their
traditional methods corner of the universe for as long as they can. What's
wrong with that? 

We all have been saying that digital is a hard-sell for now because the
gallery types don't know the process or the lingo. Someone said before here
that it will only take a couple of notable photographers to go digital to
turn the tide. 

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

Just had this from Bob at MIS...


 
Julian,

I understand.  The Post Office service is usually acceptable, but when 
the
package hits Customs, this is where the problems and delays occur.  The
Post Office has no control over it, and we don't either.  They can sit 
on a
package forever or pass it straight through.  Sometimes our attempt to 
keep
the marked value of the package low, so you don't have to pay fortune in
taxes and duty, backfires on us.  If a Customs agent thinks we are 
trying
to cheat them, they will hold it longer.

If we ship using FedEx or UPS, they operate differently than the Post
Office.  They walk their shipments through Customs or have dedicated 
agents
assigned to their packages.  It all goes much smoother, and UPS or FedEx
will not let a package get hung up in Customs like the Post Office does.
There is a price to pay however.  UPS and FedEx demand to have the 
actual
product invoice attached to the outside of the box.  This means paying 
full
price on tax and duty.  Plus, the difference between the freight charges
that the Post Office charges is significant.  For instance a 4 pound
package to Spain via Air Parcel Post is about $40.  The same package
shipped using FedEx or UPS will run about $160 or more.

It is a trade off, cost vs risk of delay.  Most of our customers opt to
take the risk.

As usual in life, for those who are in a hurry, everything goes wrong.
Sorry this is happening to you.

Post this on the forum if you wish.

Bob
MIS

Martin wrote,

>Lenswork ... isn't anti-digital but [is] pushing silver fiber and
>photogravure as the final output. They didn't feel that there would be much
>of a market for inkjet prints of their "Special Editions." ...

I confess I went through a period of using imagesetter internegatives and
other ways to make "silver prints" that had, in fact, gone through a digital
step.  One reason was that the toned, fiber-based silver-print is considered
the more archival and higher value product.

However, my feeling was that it was not just the physical characteristics of
the silver print, but the rejection of the digital step that was behind the
price and "fine art" acceptance of the digital outputs.  Whether the
rejection of the digital step is rational or not is somewhat irrelevant in
the short run if one wants to sell into that market.

At any rate, part of my search for a digital silver-print workflow included
finding an internegative that was so good that the purchaser or gallery
could not tell that the print was digital.  After thinking about that
approach more, however, I decided such an approach would be just plain
dishonest.  Trying to hide the digital step might get one some sales, but
ultimately someone will ask, "Did that silver print go through a digital
step?"  I was unwilling to lie about what I was doing.

I also found that the imagesetters were not making prints that were totally
lacking in artifacts.  When I was using them the "stochastic" imagesetter
outputs still had highlights with a fine "screen door" pattern that could be
seen with a loupe.

After trying a bunch of different workflows, I concluded that pigmented
quads and inkjets were equal in visual quality (better than all but the best
imagesetters) and much cheaper.  Also, I have found working with service
bureaus to be very frustrating.

At any rate, the LensWork prints, being silver-prints but with the digital
step (I assume) clearly disclosed is a reasonable compromise.  But, to the
extent the digital step is the problem, it still does not get rid of that
prejudice, and I suspect the prices reflect it.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

At 02:41 PM 2/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>> That camera obscuras were used before the fixed image has nothing
>> to do with
>> photography. There was nothing remotely like photography before
>> photography.
>> Read Batchen's "Burning with Desire" for one of many helpful books that
>> clear up that issue.
>
>Alan;
>
>My point is that we should consider the history of the camera's impact on
>the way artist's see the world - I have read Batchen and I don't think it is
>at odds with my concerns. If we agree or not Hockney make makes interesting
>comments on this issue in his latest.

Wendel,

Yes! I have been wanting to get DH's new book.  He is brilliant with any medium.
There are other books that covered the subject of pre or proto-photo.
Van Derrin Coke and Szarkowski come to mind.
I think the fact that optical devices were used to aid naturalistic painting
isn't nearly as important as the psychological, philosophical, cultural,
affect fixing an image had and still has. Method doesn't count and that is
where you want to make a distinction and I don't. Pick any method at any
time in the history of the medium and you will find remarkable analogies to
the digital aesthetic and craft.  It is purely a business decision not based
on craft or philosophy on the part of BW I believe. I see the mag as a slick
catalog as much as anything. 

I wonder if the guys who are most upset know the photo market that well (not
that I do)?  I would think there is a niche for everyone and your point
about not being accepted (into a particular niche) now makes sense to me. 

AZ


>> Why make a distinction between digital printing and the dozens of other
>> methods of making an image from film?  One could privilege any method of
>> printing in that way.
>
>The reason for my distinction is that digital imaging offers the artist a
>flexibility that does not exist in photography. That is not good or bad, but
>it is different. And I guess that I am reluctant to believe that there is
>some sort of photographic conspiracy against digital prints or images but
>rather a recognition of the difference between the two.
>
>With regard to "seeking approval" I only meant that there seemed to be a lot
>of disappointment here in the list with regard to the decision of B&W
>Magazine or the presence of digital images at AIPAD.
>
>But I could be completely wrong...it's just my observation.
>
>Wendel
>
>
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

on 2/28/02 12:13 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> At any rate, the LensWork prints, being silver-prints but with the digital
> step (I assume) clearly disclosed is a reasonable compromise.  But, to the
> extent the digital step is the problem, it still does not get rid of that
> prejudice, and I suspect the prices reflect it.

Yup, at $39 - $99, I'd say so.

Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> At any rate, part of my search for a digital silver-print workflow 
included
> finding an internegative that was so good that the purchaser or 
gallery
> could not tell that the print was digital.


I have been told that the go-to-guy for these large 
internegs/prints is a guy named Bob Randall in Chicago. I was 
told that he could go to 30x40. I'm sure he's very pricey though; 
he's supposedly done a bunch of those retouched Herb Ritts 
images.

Call me old-fashioned, but it just feels weird (wrong) to work this 
way; from digital back to analog. If you're gonna jump the fence, 
best to stay on one side.

But of course money is what drives all this. As with all things. As 
soon as Epson gets their act together, that Randall guy will be off 
to the next big thang...

MTucker