Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> wrote:
> snip...
> > For the record:  I am considered a master b&w printer myself, and have (among other things) had my work in
>
> > several respected gallery shows (worldwide), been published in several hardcover 'Art' books, and have
> > lectured about my work at the International Center for Photography, here in NYC.
>
> Harvey, first of all I was glad to see on another list that you and yours are ok.
> Given you experience, I'm curious about your impressions on the state of digital B&W printing, what current
> methods you
> use, and how the prints feel to you compared to analogue methods.
> If you have time of course.
> Thanks, Tyler

Sadly, I am woefully ignorant of the current 'state of the art' inkjet output technology...Although, now that
its gotten my attention, I'm gaining knowledge quickly.

Because of this, I am really looking forward to the print exchange to see what others are doing.  And although
I live in NYC, I'm pretty bad at going to galleries to see what's out there.

I know that a few years ago, when Iris became the rage, I thought *WOW*, pretty cool.  But then, upon closer
inspection, I found the dot patterns too coarse, and when the fading issues arose, I just stopped thinking
about it.

As with all digital and computer stuff, I sort of let the initial breakthroughs go by me without much thought
about them, as I could not afford the technology, and knew that it would soon drastically improve and drop in
price.

It used to be that they only thing we did with our computer was business paperwork and the internet.  But now,
things are starting to change.  We have a Mac G4 (one of the first 450's), now with an added gig of RAM, an
Epson 2000P (which I'm pretty happy with having replaced an Epson PhotoEX which I liked 'til it broke down,
and was disturbed by the fading issues), a Microtek Scanmaker x12USL (42 bit, 1200 optical resolution), and
now an Iomega Peerless 20 gig portable storage unit (all those big scans)...Oh, and the SONY DSC-S30 (1.3
megapixels) digital camera.

We have done a few small jobs with the SONY, but are lusting after more pixels in the capture at an affordable
price (it's coming).  We are now printing out most of our portfolio on the 2000P, and quickly discovered the
limitations of our scanner, and are looking into a high end Scitex type scanner.

Oddly, in photography, I always thought that people were too equipment fixated.....that one's technique and
vision was *much* more important than the equipment (look at some of the images Edward Steichen did on the
Acropolis with only a box camera).  But, in the digital world, the better equipment *is* needed to output
imagery.  I imagine in 50 years, this probably will not be true anymore, but currently, bigger *is* better,
more resolution, more able to communicate more information.

Photoshop: I have been going round and round on this issue with Carolyn  Frayn (of this list), and find it
difficult to properly express myself...

I find that students of photography can *much* more easily get a good looking ('straight') digital print (full
tone, black to white, with luminosity etc.) than with traditional wet chemical methodology, which takes more
technical expertise.  That said, I find that these same students abuse Photoshop in their work...It tends to
*scream* "I own a computer, and have Photoshop".  I assume they will outgrow their dependence on Photoshop's
special effects algorythms....eg:  Too many liquid heads and impressionism.  :- )

The direction this is all going?...I don't know.  Obviously, we can now easily do, previously unheard of
manipulations to achieve technical perfection.  Whether that's with the simple tonal curves, or cloning
several exposures together to get all the tones in one image, or touching out unwanted distractions on a print
(like telephone wires).....That's a great thing.  Those that gripe about that, are just old farts, and should
be ignored.  :- )  The digitized environment also makes a great deal of sense in photo illustrations, and in
the Jerry Ulseman type imagery.  It does *not* trivialize this work, it just gives more people, more tools.

We all will need to just wait and see what the future holds.  It's the kids that are in grade school now, that
will be taking these new tools to unimaginable great new directions.

Documentary Photography and Photo Journalism:  Photography *never* told the 'truth'.  It always had an
'opinion'.  Way back in the 1800's there are documented cases of "documentary photos" where battlefield images
were faked....The dead soldiers were re-dressed in the enemies uniforms. Another example would be the famous
'Family of Man' exhibit.  When it was sent to Russia, all the photos that had police cars in them were
retouched so as to remove the police emblems off the car....A true picture of America?  I don' think so,
unless you were aware of the manipulation....And *that* would be a truer statement about the government of
that time.

There is, finally no 'truth'.  All images must be looked at knowing the point of view of the presented.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts Harvey, I guess I'm pretty much with you on the whole digital thing. Given your background, I'll be 
interested in your impressions of the print exchange. Not as a critique, but how quad ink prints feel in general to you. I'm so 
into it now, I can't see the forest through the trees.
Tyler

Actually Harvey, you always express yourself very well indeed...  (liquid
heads excl)... <VBG>

I agree, they will outgrow it once the "wow look what I can do" factor dies
and the "tasteful/powerful artistic vision" mind takes over again.   The
kids who work with this stuff certainly embrace it...  But, talent is
talent... just because you have a great knowledge of certain software does
not mean you have the talent to output something wonderful.

Carolyn

> Photoshop: I have been going round and round on this issue with Carolyn  Frayn
> (of this list), and find it difficult to properly express myself...
> 
> I find that students of photography can *much* more easily get a good looking
> ('straight') digital print (full tone, black to white, with luminosity etc.)
> than with traditional wet chemical methodology, which takes more technical
> expertise.  That said, I find that these same students abuse Photoshop in
> their work...It tends to *scream* "I own a computer, and have Photoshop".  I
> assume they will outgrow their dependence on Photoshop's special effects
> algorythms....eg:  Too many liquid heads and impressionism.  :- )

Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts Harvey, I guess I'm pretty much with you on the whole digital thing. Given your
> background, I'll be
> interested in your impressions of the print exchange. Not as a critique, but how quad ink prints feel in
> general to you. I'm so
> into it now, I can't see the forest through the trees.
> Tyler

If the truth be known, I'm a bit worried about my/our entry. First, it's printed using 'classic' Epson pigment
color inks to make a b&W, and second, although I'm proud of the image (a hand altered, torn, taped etc.)
Polaroid 665 neg., it was scanned on our dinky Microtek scanner.  When we had another 665 neg. scanned on a
Scitex a few weeks ago (for one of our source book ads..Klik) it was *so* much more dynamic and rich!  It was
good and bad...It made me realize what we were missing, *and* how much it was going to cost us to either
out-source all our scans or buy one of those very expensive scanners (and then find the space in our *very*
small NY apartment to fit it).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography



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