Digital BW, The Print

It's a continuing source of hearty chuckles to pick up B/W 
Magazine from time to time. I love to watch the subtle ways that 
they continue to bash digital technology with one hand, and 
somehow manage to accept advertising dollars from companies 
that use digital techniques, with the other hand.

* Page 22: Funny ad from some photographer's group in Long 
Island that have "dedicated themselves to preservation and 
furthering of classical BW photography", blah blah blah. 

Then in the next paragraph they brag how their members' work 
will be digitally archived via CD, DVD, and the Internet.

I wrote them a very serious tongue-in-cheek letter suggesting 
that they all sell their computers and only correspond via manual 
typewriters and USMail.

* Page 7: Publisher again makes note of their continued 
defiance of digital photography. Even though they've featured 
photographers who use digital, this came from a prior promise 
before their philosophical shift. 

* Page 65: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
advertisement from a company called Ataraxia Studio, which 
claims to produce long lasting digital prints with pigments.

* Page 69: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
advertisement for A&I Lab in Los Angeles, who mentions their 
Iris and LightJet printing services.

* Page 142: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
advertisement for Camera West store, which mentions their 
stock of digital cameras.

*Page 144: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
advertisement from PhotoVillage.com, featuring wide range of 
film scanners, scanning services, and Piezo services.

-----------

You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're gonna take a stand, 
take a stand; but with both your mouth AND your pocketbook.

Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the very 
best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's 
motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology. 
Can't we all just get along?

Just my opinion,

Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/

(cross-post)

Hello from the the US Capital,

A little off topic, but I had a similar experience to Mr. Tucker's last week
and would like to share it with the group...

Last week I had the opportunity to exchange emails with Brooks Jensen, "Mr.
LensWork Magazine".  I essentially suggested that his writings and selling
of their inexpensive "collector series" prints was somewhat trashing the
validity of digital printing due to their VERY LOW selling price.  He wrote
back that he really does support digital printing...in fact he even has
personally embraced the technology, yada, yada, yada, and to read his
article in their volume #41, which I already had.

I am sure that most of us that read LensWork would agree that it is a first
rate publication and that the prints that LensWork is selling are "copies"
that are digitally reproduced, not originals.

What really rattled my cage was Jensen's so called "I'm doing it myself"
acceptance/validation of our medium while at the same time states in
his/their advertisement that the prints they sell are..."Not Inkjet!"
Woa...what does that mean?????

What LensWork and Mr. Jemnsen seem to be communicating is that InkJet is not
as valid/worthy/collectable/good as their photogravure and silver gelatin
repro prints.  More importantly, they seem to be implying that inkjet is
overpriced...woa!  

What do you folks think...are they helping or hurting our efforts, or is
inkJet really nothing more than a low-end knock-off of a traditional
darkroom print?  

As for me, I will continue to pursue this craft with great enthusiasm and
vigor.

Regards...Craig 
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.craigsterling.com  "Photography with a Sense of Place"

> From: "Mark Tucker" <mark@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:14:15 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Dec. Issue: B/W Magazine
> 
> It's a continuing source of hearty chuckles to pick up B/W
> Magazine from time to time. I love to watch the subtle ways that
> they continue to bash digital technology with one hand, and
> somehow manage to accept advertising dollars from companies
> that use digital techniques, with the other hand.
> 
> * Page 22: Funny ad from some photographer's group in Long
> Island that have "dedicated themselves to preservation and
> furthering of classical BW photography", blah blah blah.
> 
> Then in the next paragraph they brag how their members' work
> will be digitally archived via CD, DVD, and the Internet.
> 
> I wrote them a very serious tongue-in-cheek letter suggesting
> that they all sell their computers and only correspond via manual
> typewriters and USMail.
> 
> * Page 7: Publisher again makes note of their continued
> defiance of digital photography. Even though they've featured
> photographers who use digital, this came from a prior promise
> before their philosophical shift.
> 
> * Page 65: Magazine accepts money from full-page
> advertisement from a company called Ataraxia Studio, which
> claims to produce long lasting digital prints with pigments.
> 
> * Page 69: Magazine accepts money from full-page
> advertisement for A&I Lab in Los Angeles, who mentions their
> Iris and LightJet printing services.
> 
> * Page 142: Magazine accepts money from full-page
> advertisement for Camera West store, which mentions their
> stock of digital cameras.
> 
> *Page 144: Magazine accepts money from full-page
> advertisement from PhotoVillage.com, featuring wide range of
> film scanners, scanning services, and Piezo services.
> 
> -----------
> 
> You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're gonna take a stand,
> take a stand; but with both your mouth AND your pocketbook.
> 
> Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the very
> best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's
> motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology.
> Can't we all just get along?
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/
> 
> (cross-post)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> It's a continuing source of hearty chuckles to pick up B/W 
> Magazine from time to time. I love to watch the subtle ways that 
> they continue to bash digital technology with one hand, and 
> somehow manage to accept advertising dollars from companies 
> that use digital techniques, with the other hand.
> 
> * Page 22: Funny ad from some photographer's group in Long 
> Island that have "dedicated themselves to preservation and 
> furthering of classical BW photography", blah blah blah. 
> 
> Then in the next paragraph they brag how their members' work 
> will be digitally archived via CD, DVD, and the Internet.
> 
> I wrote them a very serious tongue-in-cheek letter suggesting 
> that they all sell their computers and only correspond via manual 
> typewriters and USMail.
> 
> * Page 7: Publisher again makes note of their continued 
> defiance of digital photography. Even though they've featured 
> photographers who use digital, this came from a prior promise 
> before their philosophical shift. 
> 
> * Page 65: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from a company called Ataraxia Studio, which 
> claims to produce long lasting digital prints with pigments.
> 
> * Page 69: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for A&I Lab in Los Angeles, who mentions their 
> Iris and LightJet printing services.
> 
> * Page 142: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for Camera West store, which mentions their 
> stock of digital cameras.
> 
> *Page 144: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from PhotoVillage.com, featuring wide range of 
> film scanners, scanning services, and Piezo services.
> 
> -----------
> 
> You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're gonna take a stand, 
> take a stand; but with both your mouth AND your pocketbook.
> 
> Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the 
very 

> best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's 
> motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology. 
> Can't we all just get along?
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/
> 
> (cross-post)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> It's a continuing source of hearty chuckles to pick up B/W 
> Magazine from time to time. I love to watch the subtle ways that 
> they continue to bash digital technology with one hand, and 
> somehow manage to accept advertising dollars from companies 
> that use digital techniques, with the other hand.
> 
> * Page 22: Funny ad from some photographer's group in Long 
> Island that have "dedicated themselves to preservation and 
> furthering of classical BW photography", blah blah blah. 
> 
> Then in the next paragraph they brag how their members' work 
> will be digitally archived via CD, DVD, and the Internet.
> 
> I wrote them a very serious tongue-in-cheek letter suggesting 
> that they all sell their computers and only correspond via manual 
> typewriters and USMail.
> 
> * Page 7: Publisher again makes note of their continued 
> defiance of digital photography. Even though they've featured 
> photographers who use digital, this came from a prior promise 
> before their philosophical shift. 
> 
> * Page 65: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from a company called Ataraxia Studio, which 
> claims to produce long lasting digital prints with pigments.
> 
> * Page 69: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for A&I Lab in Los Angeles, who mentions their 
> Iris and LightJet printing services.
> 
> * Page 142: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for Camera West store, which mentions their 
> stock of digital cameras.
> 
> *Page 144: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from PhotoVillage.com, featuring wide range of 
> film scanners, scanning services, and Piezo services.
> 
> -----------
> 
> You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're gonna take a stand, 
> take a stand; but with both your mouth AND your pocketbook.
> 
> Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the 
very 
> best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's 
> motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology. 
> Can't we all just get along?
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/
> 
> (cross-post)

Seems to me the problem here, to the extent there is one, is with the 
advertisers, not the magazine. If sellers of digital products choose 
to advertise in a magazine that on the editorial side doesn't care 
for their medium, why should the magazine turn their money down? The 
magazine is, after all, in business to make money. The suitability of 
the magazine as a vehicle for digital advertising is a decision made 
by the advertisers, not the magazine.

> > Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the
> very
> > best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's
> > motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology.
> > Can't we all just get along?
> >
> > Just my opinion,
> >
> > Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/


really? I think it's generally pretty blah, with the same old same old rocks
water trees or some old, slightly unknown photographer from the 40's or 50's
they are trying to promote so maybe he/she will become collectable, the rest
of it is stuck in the N. American fine art aesthetic, somewhere at the
beginning of the 20th century. Some so so nudes. Or the obligatory article
on someone who uses passe total lack of depth of field and loads of blurry
backgrounds. All set to fill a thousand calendar pages.

Not much to get excited about.

I find about once in every two or three editions there is an interst9ing
article - Horace Bristol in this one.


tim

> > Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the
> very
> > best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's
> > motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology.
> > Can't we all just get along?
> >
> > Just my opinion,
> >
> > Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/


really? I think it's generally pretty blah, with the same old same old rocks
water trees or some old, slightly unknown photographer from the 40's or 50's
they are trying to promote so maybe he/she will become collectable, the rest
of it is stuck in the N. American fine art aesthetic, somewhere at the
beginning of the 20th century. Some so so nudes. Or the obligatory article
on someone who uses passe total lack of depth of field and loads of blurry
backgrounds. All set to fill a thousand calendar pages.

Not much to get excited about.

I find about once in every two or three editions there is an interst9ing
article - Horace Bristol in this one.


tim

Hi Mark-

Yeah...it's a real pip, isn't it? When BW publisher first made the 
statement on the policy, I got all crazy and quit my subscription. I 
have to tell you, Henry wrote me several emails discussing his views 
and won me back...I resubscribed. He feels that the role of the 
silver based printer is getting squeezed out, especially in the "new 
photographer" market place, and although he sees progress for what it 
is, he loves silver prints and wants to dedicate his publication to 
them exclusively. It may sound like antagonism toward digital, but 
after my dialog with him, I think all of his decisions are based on a 
positive affinity for silver not anything anti-digital (of course we 
may not all be willing to make that distinction <g>).

I agree with you and have a lot of trouble understanding why there 
would be such distinctions...are their publications dedicated to only 
platinum printing? Or to sepia toned prints? Or to non-resin coated 
prints? What about the photographer who captures on film, scans to 
make adjustments and prints to a neg so he can make a "silver" print? 
What is that???

I shoot all digital now...sold and donated to charity all the 
darkroom and film equipment. But many in the forum are shooting view 
camera negatives and printing with inksets. If I printed my digital 
image capture to a negative and had it printed in a lab, would that 
be more "traditional" than the 4x5 negative printed with an inkjet?

Time will tell.

In the meantime, I agree that it's a worthwhile magazine and should 
be valued and I hope it survives...and also LensWork...wish it were 
monthly, too.

Cheers,

Tom O'Connell

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> It's a continuing source of hearty chuckles to pick up B/W 
> Magazine from time to time. I love to watch the subtle ways that 
> they continue to bash digital technology with one hand, and 
> somehow manage to accept advertising dollars from companies 
> that use digital techniques, with the other hand.
> 
> * Page 22: Funny ad from some photographer's group in Long 
> Island that have "dedicated themselves to preservation and 
> furthering of classical BW photography", blah blah blah. 
> 
> Then in the next paragraph they brag how their members' work 
> will be digitally archived via CD, DVD, and the Internet.
> 
> I wrote them a very serious tongue-in-cheek letter suggesting 
> that they all sell their computers and only correspond via manual 
> typewriters and USMail.
> 
> * Page 7: Publisher again makes note of their continued 
> defiance of digital photography. Even though they've featured 
> photographers who use digital, this came from a prior promise 
> before their philosophical shift. 
> 
> * Page 65: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from a company called Ataraxia Studio, which 
> claims to produce long lasting digital prints with pigments.
> 
> * Page 69: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for A&I Lab in Los Angeles, who mentions their 
> Iris and LightJet printing services.
> 
> * Page 142: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement for Camera West store, which mentions their 
> stock of digital cameras.
> 
> *Page 144: Magazine accepts money from full-page 
> advertisement from PhotoVillage.com, featuring wide range of 
> film scanners, scanning services, and Piezo services.
> 
> -----------
> 
> You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're gonna take a stand, 
> take a stand; but with both your mouth AND your pocketbook.
> 
> Yet, having said all that, it's still a FINE magazine. One of the 
very 

> best on the stands. But it just makes you wonder what's 
> motivating this fear-based policy of resisting digital technology. 
> Can't we all just get along?
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/
> 
> (cross-post)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom O'Connell" 
<TomOC@s...> wrote:
and although he sees progress for what it 
> is, he loves silver prints and wants to dedicate his publication 
to 
> them exclusively. It may sound like antagonism toward digital, 
but 
> after my dialog with him, I think all of his decisions are based 
on a 
> positive affinity for silver not anything anti-digital

------

Bullshit.

If that's the case, and he wants to "dedicate his publication" to 
silver, then he should also instruct his advertisers of that 
viewpoint as well, in that, they should make no mention of digital 
technology in any of their ads. I guarantee you one thing -- he 
would get REALLY clear on exactly how he felt about digital, if he 
had the cojones to make that statement. Again, you're either "in" 
or your "out"; you can't have it both ways.

It's really such a silly philosophy, and I'd bet one that's driven very 
much by collectors, and advertisers (the silver-based 
Tree/Rock/Root photographers who are freaking out about the 
future of their income). It's just so transparent. You just bought 
into his dramatic justification; that's all. You just TRY to look 
yourself in the mirror tonight; you wont' be able to.

And like someone else said, Is it "digital" if it was shot with a 
slimy D60 digital camera, but then output to an enlarged contact 
negative, and then printed in gum bichromate, in a monastery 
darkroom in the Himalayas, by the Dalai Lama himself? Or, is it 
"digital" if it was shot with Ansel Adams' own 8x10 Deardorff, with 
filmstock stolen from Ansel Adams' own refrigerator, but then 
scanned on a Cruse scanner, but then output to an Epson 
9600? 

The lines are so fuzzy that making the line in the sand between 
the two technologies is just silly. 

And is it not just as evil for a computer-driven enlarger to have 
particpated in the making of the silver print? And what if the 
"artist" doesn't even make his own prints, but he sends them out 
so that some eyebrowed-pierced, dope-smoking teenager who 
works in a commercial lab can actually "create the art" for him? 
Talk about ludicrous; now THAT is ludicrous...

The more I think about it, the madder I get. I wish I'd waited til 
now to write that Henry guy my letter. It certainly would have 
contained different language. I'm not even a subscriber, and still 
I want to unsubscribe.

-MT, http://marktucker.com/

Whoa Mark,

pretty funny...! Gotta say I agree with you though - it's all mid-level
photo collector posing and seems to miss the point of both art/creativity
and also photography.

and
> particpated in the making of the silver print? And what if the
> "artist" doesn't even make his own prints, but he sends them out
> so that some eyebrowed-pierced, dope-smoking teenager who
> works in a commercial lab can actually "create the art" for him?
> Talk about ludicrous; now THAT is ludicrous...

is that the same one who prints HCB's stuff I wonder?

But it's Sunday afternoon go chill out and have a latte (in the sun?) - it's
gotta be warmer there than here :-)

tim

PS - like the website, but especially the plungercam...

Mark's reply gave me the biggest laugh I've had for a while. Absolutely 
right on! I like the imagery of the Dali Lama in the monastery! 
Wonderful.

Jim
San Diego

>The suitability of the magazine as a vehicle for digital advertising
>is a decision made by the advertisers, not the magazine.

Exactly right.  The advertisers know what they are doing.  They know
that a lot of the readers are doing, or are considering, digital
printing, even if the editor doesn't know.

I think it's great.  The more digital technology is advertised in a
slick art oriented mag the more legitimacy it gives it in the eyes of
the readers.

Paul is right - it's just a matter of time.

I also am glad there is a mag and editor like this out there.  Light
sensitive emulsion printing is an exquisite art form and it deserves
to be preserved.  

A few years ago I was thinking "I'll never change", but now I'm 56,
have some back and hip problems which make it difficult to stand long
hours in the darkroom, and am more sensitive to the fumes.  Last year
when Steve K. showed me some of his digi prints and I saw what the
technology is now capable of, it didn't take me long to make a
decision.

So it goes, and I hope there will always be some who keep the older
craft alive and well, and they deserve an excellent mag to showcase
it.

Regards, - cj

>>>>
really? I think it's generally pretty blah, with the same old same
old rocks water trees or some old, slightly unknown photographer from
the 40's or 50's they are trying to promote so maybe he/she will
become collectable, the rest of it is stuck in the N. American fine
art aesthetic, somewhere at the beginning of the 20th century. Some
so so nudes. Or the obligatory article on someone who uses passe
total lack of depth of field and loads of blurry backgrounds. All set
to fill a thousand calendar pages.
 I find about once in every two or three editions there is an
intersting article - Horace Bristol in this one.
>>>>>>

Yes, there is a lot of cliche, but that's always been true of any
photo mag.  You have to have the masses so the cream can rise to the
top.  I'd rather have B&W mag than no B&W mag.

I like the "slightly unknown photographer from the 40's or 50's"
articles.  I love photography and enjoy seeing and reading about
others' work and lives.  The editor's motivation for printing them is
irrelevent to me.

The mag's anti-digi stance is also irrelevent, in this regard.  To me
it's all photography.  I love looking at photos and reading about
them.  Doesn't matter how the prints were made.  Besides, what I'm
looking at in the mag is halftone dots.  I would rather see the mag
continue than die, and I'm considering subscribing just to help
insure that.

Speaking of photo mags, "Modern Photography" was one of my favorites
because they showcased work in a nice way.  For someone who loved   
photography there was usually some good reading material in every
issue. I always felt that it should have won out over "Popular".

And has anyone ever subscribed to "Shots"?  All about the love of
photography, printed on newsprint, and as equally valid as "B&W" in my
book.  Great photo mag!

Regards, - cj

".
>
> And has anyone ever subscribed to "Shots"?  All about the love of
> photography, printed on newsprint, and as equally valid as "B&W" in my
> book.  Great photo mag!

I look forward to every issue - always some interesting stuff- also had
something published in the last issue (shameless plug)

Julian

At 09:11 PM 11/17/2002 -0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom O'Connell" 
><TomOC@s...> wrote:
>and although he sees progress for what it 
>> is, he loves silver prints and wants to dedicate his publication 
>to 
>> them exclusively. It may sound like antagonism toward digital, 
>but 
>> after my dialog with him, I think all of his decisions are based 
>on a 
>> positive affinity for silver not anything anti-digital
>
>------
>
>Bullshit.
>
>If that's the case, and he wants to "dedicate his publication" to 
>silver, then he should also instruct his advertisers of that 
>viewpoint as well, in that, they should make no mention of digital 
>technology in any of their ads. I guarantee you one thing -- he 
>would get REALLY clear on exactly how he felt about digital, if he 
>had the cojones to make that statement. Again, you're either "in" 
>or your "out"; you can't have it both ways.
>
>It's really such a silly philosophy, and I'd bet one that's driven very 
>much by collectors, and advertisers (the silver-based 
>Tree/Rock/Root photographers who are freaking out about the 
>future of their income). It's just so transparent. You just bought 
>into his dramatic justification; that's all. You just TRY to look 
>yourself in the mirror tonight; you wont' be able to.
>
>And like someone else said, Is it "digital" if it was shot with a 
>slimy D60 digital camera, but then output to an enlarged contact 
>negative, and then printed in gum bichromate, in a monastery 
>darkroom in the Himalayas, by the Dalai Lama himself? Or, is it 
>"digital" if it was shot with Ansel Adams' own 8x10 Deardorff, with 
>filmstock stolen from Ansel Adams' own refrigerator, but then 
>scanned on a Cruse scanner, but then output to an Epson 
>9600? 
>
>The lines are so fuzzy that making the line in the sand between 
>the two technologies is just silly. 
>
>And is it not just as evil for a computer-driven enlarger to have 
>particpated in the making of the silver print? And what if the 
>"artist" doesn't even make his own prints, but he sends them out 
>so that some eyebrowed-pierced, dope-smoking teenager who 
>works in a commercial lab can actually "create the art" for him? 
>Talk about ludicrous; now THAT is ludicrous...
>
>The more I think about it, the madder I get. I wish I'd waited til 
>now to write that Henry guy my letter. It certainly would have 
>contained different language. I'm not even a subscriber, and still 
>I want to unsubscribe.
>
>-MT, http://marktucker.com/
>

Mark,

Photography has survived countless purity purges. That, more often than not,
limits those true believer's quality of thinking and seeing. I agree with
Tim. I think the mag is a generally boring sales piece for interior
decoration art. 

I see no logic or ethical principle in your doctrinaire insistence on
advertizing purity. Why should it be a Black and White issue?

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

I LOVE the D60 Digital camera. I have 3 images stitched together in
photoshop of some birch trunks size 12x36 inches. The quality is very
close to a 4x5 print. This camera is so good, I'm selling all my film
cameras. And next spring, there will be a 12 megapixel canon. Can hardly wait!

Jerry



Alan Zinn wrote:

> 
> At 09:11 PM 11/17/2002 -0000, you wrote:
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom O'Connell"
> ><TomOC@s...> wrote:
> >and although he sees progress for what it
> >> is, he loves silver prints and wants to dedicate his publication
> >to
> >> them exclusively. It may sound like antagonism toward digital,
> >but
> >> after my dialog with him, I think all of his decisions are based
> >on a
> >> positive affinity for silver not anything anti-digital
> >
> >------
> >
> >Bullshit.
> >
> >If that's the case, and he wants to "dedicate his publication" to
> >silver, then he should also instruct his advertisers of that
> >viewpoint as well, in that, they should make no mention of digital
> >technology in any of their ads. I guarantee you one thing -- he
> >would get REALLY clear on exactly how he felt about digital, if he
> >had the cojones to make that statement. Again, you're either "in"
> >or your "out"; you can't have it both ways.
> >
> >It's really such a silly philosophy, and I'd bet one that's driven very
> >much by collectors, and advertisers (the silver-based
> >Tree/Rock/Root photographers who are freaking out about the
> >future of their income). It's just so transparent. You just bought
> >into his dramatic justification; that's all. You just TRY to look
> >yourself in the mirror tonight; you wont' be able to.
> >
> >And like someone else said, Is it "digital" if it was shot with a
> >slimy D60 digital camera, but then output to an enlarged contact
> >negative, and then printed in gum bichromate, in a monastery
> >darkroom in the Himalayas, by the Dalai Lama himself? Or, is it
> >"digital" if it was shot with Ansel Adams' own 8x10 Deardorff, with
> >filmstock stolen from Ansel Adams' own refrigerator, but then
> >scanned on a Cruse scanner, but then output to an Epson
> >9600?
> >
> >The lines are so fuzzy that making the line in the sand between
> >the two technologies is just silly.
> >
> >And is it not just as evil for a computer-driven enlarger to have
> >particpated in the making of the silver print? And what if the
> >"artist" doesn't even make his own prints, but he sends them out
> >so that some eyebrowed-pierced, dope-smoking teenager who
> >works in a commercial lab can actually "create the art" for him?
> >Talk about ludicrous; now THAT is ludicrous...
> >
> >The more I think about it, the madder I get. I wish I'd waited til
> >now to write that Henry guy my letter. It certainly would have
> >contained different language. I'm not even a subscriber, and still
> >I want to unsubscribe.
> >
> >-MT, http://marktucker.com/
> >
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Photography has survived countless purity purges. That, more often than not,
> limits those true believer's quality of thinking and seeing. I agree with
> Tim. I think the mag is a generally boring sales piece for interior
> decoration art.
> 
> I see no logic or ethical principle in your doctrinaire insistence on
> advertizing purity. Why should it be a Black and White issue?
> 
> AZ
> 
> Build a Lookaround!
> The Lookaround Book.
> http://www.panoramacamera.us
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/

> I LOVE the D60 Digital camera. I have 3 images stitched together in
> photoshop of some birch trunks size 12x36 inches. The quality is
very
> close to a 4x5 print. This camera is so good, I'm selling all my
film
> cameras. And next spring, there will be a 12 megapixel canon. Can
>hardly wait!

I would love to have a raw image from the D60 to play with to see what
it can do.  I have DSL...any possibillity you could send me a tripod
shot, using a lens at its best aperture, of something that would show
off its capabilities?  I've heard a lot about D60 and would like to
compare image quality to what I'm getting with my scans of Pentax 67
negs.

Regards, - cj

I can do this when I get some free time. I'll use a tripod and the 50mm
macro lens.

I'm really into panoramic images now, so I usually take side by side
shots of 2 or 3 images and put them together in photoshop. That in
itself is a 45-55 megabyte image.
I then put it through Fred Miranda's stairstep filter and enlarge it to
300 DPI at the output size.  Results are great!

Jerry

I imagine I'd have to send your image on a CD, as I don't have a very
fast connection.





Clayton Jones wrote:

> 
> > I LOVE the D60 Digital camera. I have 3 images stitched together in
> > photoshop of some birch trunks size 12x36 inches. The quality is
> very
> > close to a 4x5 print. This camera is so good, I'm selling all my
> film
> > cameras. And next spring, there will be a 12 megapixel canon. Can
> >hardly wait!
> 
> I would love to have a raw image from the D60 to play with to see what
> it can do.  I have DSL...any possibillity you could send me a tripod
> shot, using a lens at its best aperture, of something that would show
> off its capabilities?  I've heard a lot about D60 and would like to
> compare image quality to what I'm getting with my scans of Pentax 67
> negs.
> 
> Regards, - cj
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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/

Jerry,


>I can do this when I get some free time. I'll use a tripod 
>and the 50mm macro lens.

Great.  I appreciate it very much


>I imagine I'd have to send your image on a CD, as I don't 
>have a very fast connection.

That's fine.  If you email me with your address I'll send some dinero
to cover the postage & disc, etc.  Be happy to.

Regards, - cj

Clayton, I take it you want a file or two without anything at all done
to it. All my current files have been enhanced, sharpened, color
corrected, etc., so they wouldn't do for your purposes, right?  I could
also send one of the panoramas, and you could print it out to 36 inches
just to see what can be done with a D60.

Jerry Olson
3601 11th Avenue North
Grand Forks, 
North Dakota, 58203

Clayton Jones wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> 
> >I can do this when I get some free time. I'll use a tripod
> >and the 50mm macro lens.
> 
> Great.  I appreciate it very much
> 
> >I imagine I'd have to send your image on a CD, as I don't
> >have a very fast connection.
> 
> That's fine.  If you email me with your address I'll send some dinero
> to cover the postage & disc, etc.  Be happy to.
> 
> Regards, - cj
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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/

Hi Jerry,

>Clayton, I take it you want a file or two without anything 
>at all done to it. 

Yes that's correct.  I not asking for one of your personal pics, but
if you could put it on a tripod with your best lens at its best
aperture and go out on your front porch or whatever and grab a
daylight shot with some foreground, some background, some sky, etc, at
the highest resolution, RAW, and so on, and maybe an indoor still
life to show small detail.  Not to burden you with a big project - I
just want to see what the camera is capable of.  I've heard a lot
about the D60 and would like to have an image from it to work with.

I'm thinking "down the road" about digi replacing film (maybe someday
I can replace my medium format howitzer and carry something lighter),
and want to begin experimenting and gathering information.  A few
questions:

What about it's exposure range - does it wash out highlights easily
like the el cheapo digi point-n-shoots or is it closer to film?

What is the conversion factor for lens focal length?

Thanks very much,
Clayton

Greetings Clayton,
I read in your email that you were thinking of replacing your howitzers. 
I did two years ago. I had been using a Hassy, RB 67 and Rolleiflex and other assorted cameras.
I haven't used them since.
However it's not exactly the same. It's definetely a different medium.
The D60, from what I've seen of the work of friends, is excellent.
For myself, I am now using a Nikon 5700. I love it. I do most of my shooting in a studio doing product shots. It's by far the best studio camera I've ever had. 
Of course I can shoot RAW. But, I prefer not to, because many of the wonderful in camera options such as, sharpening won't be applied to the RAW image. I like to do as much in the camera as reasonabaly possible. I, also, don't use TIFF files in the camera. I shoot using the  best JPG File setting. I see no difference in first iteration JPG Files and TIFF files. Of course, when I have the JPG on my computer I always convert it to a TIF File or PSD File for manipulation in Photoshop. 

Have A Happy Day,
Phillip Buzard
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
philbuzard@...
Film! I don't need no stinkin' film!

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clayton Jones 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:44 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Dec. Issue: B/W Magazine


  Hi Jerry,

  >Clayton, I take it you want a file or two without anything 
  >at all done to it. 

  Yes that's correct.  I not asking for one of your personal pics, but
  if you could put it on a tripod with your best lens at its best
  aperture and go out on your front porch or whatever and grab a
  daylight shot with some foreground, some background, some sky, etc, at
  the highest resolution, RAW, and so on, and maybe an indoor still
  life to show small detail.  Not to burden you with a big project - I
  just want to see what the camera is capable of.  I've heard a lot
  about the D60 and would like to have an image from it to work with.

  I'm thinking "down the road" about digi replacing film (maybe someday
  I can replace my medium format howitzer and carry something lighter),
  and want to begin experimenting and gathering information.  A few
  questions:

  What about it's exposure range - does it wash out highlights easily
  like the el cheapo digi point-n-shoots or is it closer to film?

  What is the conversion factor for lens focal length?

  Thanks very much,
  Clayton


  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

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  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]

Hi Clayton, I'll do this sometime this week.  I'm just getting over the
flu, and don't feel so hot yet.

Jerry

> What about it's exposure range - does it wash out highlights easily
> like the el cheapo digi point-n-shoots or is it closer to film?

Closer to film. Like all digitals though, High contrast scenes are a
problem.  In those cases, since I only shoot landscapes, I just shoot 2
exposures, one over a tad, and one under a tad, and combine them in photoshop.
> 
> What is the conversion factor for lens focal length?

1.6

> Hi Clayton, I'll do this sometime this week.  I'm just 
>getting over the flu, and don't feel so hot yet.

Thanks very much.  Get Well.

Regards, - cj