Digital BW, The Print

Just a note on Lenswork Special Edition prints.

First off I have to say that if you are a B&W photographer Lenswork 
is a magazine you should be subscribing to for the wonderful 
photographs they publish, the high quality of the printing, good 
interviews and thought provoking op/ed pieces.

The do offer silver gelatin prints and now Hand Pulled Photogravure 
prints (not inkjet) ta very low prices. What they don't make 
immediately clear is that these are digital B&W prints as defined by 
the topic of this group.

The silver gelatin prints are made using contact negs printed from 
digital scans. They are extremely closed mouthed about how they make 
the negs but I am guessing it is a variation on Dan Burkholder's 
methods. (If they have achieved an improvement over Dan's method then 
I consider their failure to share this information reprehensible.)

For the Hand Pulled Photogravures they are most likely using a method 
similar to what Strange Ross is doing. (You can link to Strange's 
website in our Bookmarks section.)

So they are rather hypocritical in my eye and their arguments that 
photogravure is much more beautiful than inkjet have as much value as 
the silver vs. inkjet, or the platinum vs. silver, or oil painting 
vs. watercolor, color vs. B&W, etc.

They now have a forum by the way.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=LensWork

There is even a post asking if Lenswork accepts Piezo portfolios, 
which has not been answered.

Martin

So you are encouraging us to support a publication that does everything it can to promote a 
prejudice against the most favored form of printing by those on this list? Doesn't sound like 
effective behavior modification to me.

Tim

> Just a note on Lenswork Special Edition prints.
> 
> First off I have to say that if you are a B&W photographer Lenswork is
> a magazine you should be subscribing to for the wonderful photographs
> they publish, the high quality of the printing, good interviews and
> thought provoking op/ed pieces.
<snip> 
> So they are rather hypocritical in my eye and their arguments that
> photogravure is much more beautiful than inkjet have as much value as
> the silver vs. inkjet, or the platinum vs. silver, or oil painting vs.
> watercolor, color vs. B&W, etc.
--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com
&
http://www.borderless-photos.de

Hi all-

I need to make 20 or so B&W photos available on the Web for my current
project, but I can't use my ISP because I'm on an ADSL line (no static IP
address).
Can any one recommend a free hosting service (ads would be OK) that I could
use?

Maybe I should set up a Yahoo group? How difficult is that?  How much
control can be execised over who has access to the files (could I restrict
access, or can anyone who wants join?

Thanks for your thoughts...

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
269 Norfolk St. #3
Cambridge, MA 02139

Tim,

True but on the whole they do have good taste in B&W and are one of 
the few publications devoting themselves strictly to B&W. Oh and they 
do have Piezo and LightJet print ads in the back. So perhaps they 
will see the error of their ways. <g>

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens" 
<t.spragens@c...> wrote:
> So you are encouraging us to support a publication that does 
everything it can to promote a 
> prejudice against the most favored form of printing by those on 
this list? Doesn't sound like 
> effective behavior modification to me.
> 
> Tim
> 
> > Just a note on Lenswork Special Edition prints.
> > 
> > First off I have to say that if you are a B&W photographer 
Lenswork is
> > a magazine you should be subscribing to for the wonderful 
photographs
> > they publish, the high quality of the printing, good interviews 
and
> > thought provoking op/ed pieces.
> <snip> 
> > So they are rather hypocritical in my eye and their arguments that
> > photogravure is much more beautiful than inkjet have as much 
value as
> > the silver vs. inkjet, or the platinum vs. silver, or oil 
painting vs.

> > watercolor, color vs. B&W, etc.
> --
> Tim Spragens
> http://www.borderless-photos.com
> &
> http://www.borderless-photos.de

Bill,

You can have complete control of a Yahoo Group and put images in 
the "Photos" secton of the group homepage.

You do have to live with all the ads too.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...> 
wrote:
> Hi all-
> 
> I need to make 20 or so B&W photos available on the Web for my 
current
> project, but I can't use my ISP because I'm on an ADSL line (no 
static IP
> address).
> Can any one recommend a free hosting service (ads would be OK) that 
I could
> use?
> 
> Maybe I should set up a Yahoo group? How difficult is that?  How 
much
> control can be execised over who has access to the files (could I 
restrict

> access, or can anyone who wants join?
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts...
> 
> Bill Morse
> PhotoProspect
> 269 Norfolk St. #3
> Cambridge, MA 02139

Hi Martin, thanks for your response-

Since this is unpublished work I am interested in limiting access.  Can I
limit who gets to join the group and therefore who gets to see the photos?

on 10/7/01 11:35 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

Bill,

You can have complete control of a Yahoo Group and put images in
the "Photos" secton of the group homepage.

You do have to live with all the ads too.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...>
wrote:
> Hi all-
> 
> I need to make 20 or so B&W photos available on the Web for my
current
> project, but I can't use my ISP because I'm on an ADSL line (no
static IP
> address).
> Can any one recommend a free hosting service (ads would be OK) that
I could
> use?
> 
> Maybe I should set up a Yahoo group? How difficult is that?  How
much
> control can be execised over who has access to the files (could I
restrict
> access, or can anyone who wants join?
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts...
> 
> Bill Morse
> PhotoProspect
> 269 Norfolk St. #3
> Cambridge, MA 02139


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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

I am not pushing the site and have no interest in it other than as a user,
but for information purposes:

I learned only after using it that Photo.net does have the option of posting
your images as private and not available to the public.  You would have to
supply your site password to those you wish to access the images.

Maris Lidaka Sr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>; "Martin Wesley"
<mwesley250@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Free website Hosting for Photos?


| Hi Martin, thanks for your response-
|
| Since this is unpublished work I am interested in limiting access.  Can I
| limit who gets to join the group and therefore who gets to see the photos?
|

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...> 
wrote:
> Hi Martin, thanks for your response-
> 
> Since this is unpublished work I am interested in limiting access.  
Can I
> limit who gets to join the group and therefore who gets to see the 
photos?

Bill,

Complete. On my screen as owner I have access to a bunch of commands 
that do not show up on yours. I suggest that you create a dummy group 
first and play around with it. Antonis and I managed to tie ourselves 
in some knots when we started due to a lack of experience and the 
quirky nature of Yahoo's software. So practice a bit with a group you 
can delete.

Martin

> 
(snip)

I have just discovered your group and hope you don't mind my adding a 
bit to the conversation.
Martin, thanks for the kind words about our magazine!
Yes, we do use digital negatives in our process of making the 
LensWork Special Editions prints. I have been very candid about this 
and discussed it in length both in the magazine (LensWork #23, page 
11) and in an article on our website called "An Alternative to the 
Gallery System" posted at http://www.lenswork.com/lwsarticle2.htm. 
There I outline the use of the computer and our digital component. 
Our method is somewhat different than Dan Burkholder's method. In 
fact, Dan and I taught a workshop together demonstrating the 
differences in approach and results. We may do so again! Dan's work 
is stunning and perfectly appropriate for his platinum prints. His 
method, however, doesn't work as well for silver prints due to the 
higher resolution of silver paper and the inherent problems with a 
stochastic screen. I pioneered a different technique that is, quite 
simply, better for silver, simpler and faster. We use 425-line screen 
negatives from an Agfa Avantra 44 image setter created from an 
Acrobat file. I am happy to share more details if you are interested. 
We have no secrets. We even published our transfer curve in Dan's 
second edition book.
I believe that the digital darkroom is the greatest tool to come to 
photography since the positive/negative process. It is more important 
than any other great invention in photography -- more important than 
roll film, more important than the Zone System, more important than 
the electronic shutter or the handheld camera. My personal work is 
now almost all digital in the creative phases and only "analog" when 
I print my digital negatives on silver paper. At this point I don't 
use an ink-jet printer. I will in time. I have no doubt that the 
technology will continue to improve and issues of permanency, 
acceptance in the marketplace, and scale will be resolved in the 
favor of technolgy. There will be those (mostly people with a 
financial interest to protect) who will resist this evolution. I 
understand this. But their protests will seem siller and sillier as 
time goes on.
In fact, I would love it if digital technology became the new 
paradigm for fine art photography because I believe in it so 
strongly. I've taken a considerable amount of heat from some of my 
fellow photographers because of our pricing philosophy, but I feel 
strongly that one of the best benefits of this digital evolution (as 
well as mechanical digital prints from ink-jet printers) is the 
possibility that fine art photography can become affordable again to 
everyone. I am much more interested in the changes in DISTRIBUTION 
that will be developed from digital technologies than I am changes in 
CREATIVITY, though both will be profoundly impacted by these 
technologies.
As to the photogravures, our printer is Russ Dodd and he is, 
unequivocally, the best photogravure printer in the world. I have 
seen Strange Ross' work and it simply does not compare. I've 
seen "the best" photogravures in the world both historically and from 
contemporary photogravure printers and I am here to tell you that 
Russ Dodd's photogravures are simply better, richer, more subtle and 
refined. And yes, he is using a variation on the digital negative 
technique. Why? Because digital negatives are the solution to so many 
of photography's technical problems. I am convinced that we will look 
back on traditional enlarger-based printing techniques as a quaint, 
but primitive methodology.
As to our website that emphasizes that our Special Editions are not 
ink-jet prints, we do so to limit confusion. Our pricing strategy has 
created confusion and folks tend automatically to assume our prints 
are ink-jet prints from a printer or they couldn't be so cheap. 
(There is a lot of education required here -- as most of you probably 
know. It takes a long time and a great deal of technical skill to 
make a good ink-jet print and that they are so disparaged in the 
marketplace is a shame.) We hear this from folks all the time. In 
fact, it's kind of a joke around here. People will stop by our 
gallery and ask, "How do you make these prints?" We tell them they 
are gelatin silver prints printed from a digital master negative 
created from a scan of the master print. The silver photographic 
paper is then processed in a traditional wet darkroom using 
traditional photographic paper and chemistry, process to museum 
archival standards, selenium toned and finished by hand. They will 
then often ask, without blinking, "So which Epson printer are you 
using?" We've heard this exchange so many times we have learned that 
it is important for us to emphasize and then repeat that our prints 
are traditional gelatin silver photographic paper, over and over 
again until they get it. 
I think this illustrates a fundamental shift in our world. For 
decades now the education required when communicating to a potential 
buyer of a photograph was centered on the photographer and their 
importance as a "personality." Comments about the process or the 
medium were almost non-existent. Now, with all the variations in 
production methods, the challenge to educate consumers will separate 
the good galleries from the bad, the good websites from the bad, and 
the reputable producers from the bad. As ditital artists, those of 
you on this forum had best be prepared for the coming backlash as the 
first crop of digital prints begin to fade and turn blue on people's 
walls. It pains me to say it, but there are some digital artists out 
there who have been selling early digital prints now without full 
disclosure to the buyers and I fear there is a time bomb of bad PR 
headed our way.
That is why this forum and others like it are so important. In short, 
you guys on this forum are right and I just wanted to let you know 
that I am firmly on your side!
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

Brooks,

Welcome to the group and thank you for the long and thoughtful post. 

While the topic of the group is all forms of B&W output from a 
digital file, inkjet printing, especially with quad ink sets, has 
dominated. Any information you are willing to share on other 
techniques would be more than welcome.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., lensworkpub@y... wrote:
> I have just discovered your group and hope you don't mind my adding 
a 
> bit to the conversation.
> Martin, thanks for the kind words about our magazine!
> Yes, we do use digital negatives in our process of making the 
> LensWork Special Editions prints. I have been very candid about 
this 
> and discussed it in length both in the magazine (LensWork #23, page 
> 11) and in an article on our website called "An Alternative to the 
> Gallery System" posted at http://www.lenswork.com/lwsarticle2.htm. 
> There I outline the use of the computer and our digital component. 
> Our method is somewhat different than Dan Burkholder's method. In 
> fact, Dan and I taught a workshop together demonstrating the 
> differences in approach and results. We may do so again! Dan's work 
> is stunning and perfectly appropriate for his platinum prints. His 
> method, however, doesn't work as well for silver prints due to the 
> higher resolution of silver paper and the inherent problems with a 
> stochastic screen. I pioneered a different technique that is, quite 
> simply, better for silver, simpler and faster. We use 425-line 
screen 
> negatives from an Agfa Avantra 44 image setter created from an 
> Acrobat file. I am happy to share more details if you are 
interested.

This is an area where many people have tried Dan' methods for silver 
and found them very lacking. If you would be so kind as to elaborate 
on how you overcame the problems with his methods there would be a 
lot of eager listeners
 

(snip)

> In fact, I would love it if digital technology became the new 
> paradigm for fine art photography because I believe in it so 
> strongly. I've taken a considerable amount of heat from some of my 
> fellow photographers because of our pricing philosophy, but I feel 
> strongly that one of the best benefits of this digital evolution 
(as 
> well as mechanical digital prints from ink-jet printers) is the 
> possibility that fine art photography can become affordable again 
to 
> everyone. I am much more interested in the changes in DISTRIBUTION 
> that will be developed from digital technologies than I am changes 
in 
> CREATIVITY, though both will be profoundly impacted by these 
> technologies.

I have long thought that one of the fundamental problems of art 
distribution is that human creativity and the ability to produce 
works of art simply out strips our ability to consume it. My opinion 
of the gallery system is.... well I find it difficult to express this 
in a civil manner.

The need to find alternate distribution channels is of paramount 
importance and your Editions have been an attempt to offer and 
alternative. How successful do you feel you have been with this? 


> As to the photogravures, our printer is Russ Dodd and he is, 
> unequivocally, the best photogravure printer in the world. I have 
> seen Strange Ross' work and it simply does not compare. I've 
> seen "the best" photogravures in the world both historically and 
from 
> contemporary photogravure printers and I am here to tell you that 
> Russ Dodd's photogravures are simply better, richer, more subtle 
and 
> refined.

Considering how much hand work is involved in pulling a photogravure 
and the life of the plate, I am amazed at your pricing. 


>And yes, he is using a variation on the digital negative 
> technique. Why? Because digital negatives are the solution to so 
many 
> of photography's technical problems. I am convinced that we will 
look 
> back on traditional enlarger-based printing techniques as a quaint, 
> but primitive methodology.

(snip)

> As ditital artists, those of 
> you on this forum had best be prepared for the coming backlash as 
the 
> first crop of digital prints begin to fade and turn blue on 
people's 
> walls. It pains me to say it, but there are some digital artists 
out 
> there who have been selling early digital prints now without full 
> disclosure to the buyers and I fear there is a time bomb of bad PR 
> headed our way.

I am afraid you are all too right on this one. I know a woman who has 
been selling digital color paintings printed with standard Epson inks 
on regular bond paper. Her prices are low and she has put a great 
deal into circulation in her area. She has been at it for a good 10 
years and I can only imagine what all this stuff looks like at this 
point.

> That is why this forum and others like it are so important. In 
short, 
> you guys on this forum are right and I just wanted to let you know 
> that I am firmly on your side!

Thanks for the support and keep up the good work!

Martin Wesley

Hello Brooks,
I am so happy that you responded to our group. I am a
new member of this group and I feel so priviledged to
be here. I love your magazine because it keeps my
creative energy flowing in ways that are not always
comfortable. Believe me, that is good. New directions
are uncomfortable to me and it keeps me fresh.
Speaking of fresh, that is a bold statement you made
about your stand with the digital
darkroom...Good...I'm impressed. I would like to know
as much as I can about digital negatives, about your
materials you use for the negatives and those curves
you've mentioned. I do have a darkroom and I would
like to make digital contact negatives of great
quality...please inform me as to where I could receive
such information...Thank you...
Grady Carter

--- lensworkpub@... wrote:
> I have just discovered your group and hope you don't
> mind my adding a 
> bit to the conversation.
> Martin, thanks for the kind words about our
> magazine!
> Yes, we do use digital negatives in our process of
> making the 
> LensWork Special Editions prints. I have been very
> candid about this 
> and discussed it in length both in the magazine
> (LensWork #23, page 
> 11) and in an article on our website called "An
> Alternative to the 
> Gallery System" posted at
> http://www.lenswork.com/lwsarticle2.htm. 
> There I outline the use of the computer and our
> digital component. 
> Our method is somewhat different than Dan
> Burkholder's method. In 
> fact, Dan and I taught a workshop together
> demonstrating the 
> differences in approach and results. We may do so
> again! Dan's work 
> is stunning and perfectly appropriate for his
> platinum prints. His 
> method, however, doesn't work as well for silver
> prints due to the 
> higher resolution of silver paper and the inherent
> problems with a 
> stochastic screen. I pioneered a different technique
> that is, quite 
> simply, better for silver, simpler and faster. We
> use 425-line screen 
> negatives from an Agfa Avantra 44 image setter
> created from an 
> Acrobat file. I am happy to share more details if
> you are interested. 
> We have no secrets. We even published our transfer
> curve in Dan's 
> second edition book.
> I believe that the digital darkroom is the greatest
> tool to come to 
> photography since the positive/negative process. It
> is more important 
> than any other great invention in photography --
> more important than 
> roll film, more important than the Zone System, more
> important than 
> the electronic shutter or the handheld camera. My
> personal work is 
> now almost all digital in the creative phases and
> only "analog" when 
> I print my digital negatives on silver paper. At
> this point I don't 
> use an ink-jet printer. I will in time. I have no
> doubt that the 
> technology will continue to improve and issues of
> permanency, 
> acceptance in the marketplace, and scale will be
> resolved in the 
> favor of technolgy. There will be those (mostly
> people with a 
> financial interest to protect) who will resist this
> evolution. I 
> understand this. But their protests will seem siller
> and sillier as 
> time goes on.
> In fact, I would love it if digital technology
> became the new 
> paradigm for fine art photography because I believe
> in it so 
> strongly. I've taken a considerable amount of heat
> from some of my 
> fellow photographers because of our pricing
> philosophy, but I feel 
> strongly that one of the best benefits of this
> digital evolution (as 
> well as mechanical digital prints from ink-jet
> printers) is the 
> possibility that fine art photography can become
> affordable again to 
> everyone. I am much more interested in the changes
> in DISTRIBUTION 
> that will be developed from digital technologies
> than I am changes in 
> CREATIVITY, though both will be profoundly impacted
> by these 
> technologies.
> As to the photogravures, our printer is Russ Dodd
> and he is, 
> unequivocally, the best photogravure printer in the
> world. I have 
> seen Strange Ross' work and it simply does not
> compare. I've 
> seen "the best" photogravures in the world both
> historically and from 
> contemporary photogravure printers and I am here to
> tell you that 
> Russ Dodd's photogravures are simply better, richer,
> more subtle and 
> refined. And yes, he is using a variation on the
> digital negative 
> technique. Why? Because digital negatives are the
> solution to so many 
> of photography's technical problems. I am convinced
> that we will look 
> back on traditional enlarger-based printing
> techniques as a quaint, 
> but primitive methodology.
> As to our website that emphasizes that our Special
> Editions are not 
> ink-jet prints, we do so to limit confusion. Our
> pricing strategy has 
> created confusion and folks tend automatically to
> assume our prints 
> are ink-jet prints from a printer or they couldn't
> be so cheap. 
> (There is a lot of education required here -- as
> most of you probably 
> know. It takes a long time and a great deal of
> technical skill to 
> make a good ink-jet print and that they are so
> disparaged in the 
> marketplace is a shame.) We hear this from folks all
> the time. In 
> fact, it's kind of a joke around here. People will
> stop by our 
> gallery and ask, "How do you make these prints?" We
> tell them they 
> are gelatin silver prints printed from a digital
> master negative 
> created from a scan of the master print. The silver
> photographic 
> paper is then processed in a traditional wet
> darkroom using 
> traditional photographic paper and chemistry,
> process to museum 
> archival standards, selenium toned and finished by
> hand. They will 
> then often ask, without blinking, "So which Epson
> printer are you 
> using?" We've heard this exchange so many times we
> have learned that 
> it is important for us to emphasize and then repeat
> that our prints 
> are traditional gelatin silver photographic paper,
> over and over 
> again until they get it. 
> I think this illustrates a fundamental shift in our
> world. For 
> decades now the education required when
> communicating to a potential 
> buyer of a photograph was centered on the
> photographer and their 
> importance as a "personality." Comments about the
> process or the 
> medium were almost non-existent. Now, with all the
> variations in 
> production methods, the challenge to educate
> consumers will separate 
> the good galleries from the bad, the good websites
> from the bad, and 
> the reputable producers from the bad. As ditital
> artists, those of 
> you on this forum had best be prepared for the
> coming backlash as the 
> first crop of digital prints begin to fade and turn
> blue on people's 
> walls. It pains me to say it, but there are some
> digital artists out 
> there who have been selling early digital prints now
> without full 
> disclosure to the buyers and I fear there is a time
> bomb of bad PR 
> headed our way.
> That is why this forum and others like it are so
> important. In short, 
> you guys on this forum are right and I just wanted
> to let you know 
> that I am firmly on your side!
> Brooks Jensen
> Editor, LensWork Publishing
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

> I would like to know
> as much as I can about digital negatives, about your
> materials you use for the negatives and those curves
> you've mentioned. I do have a darkroom and I would
> like to make digital contact negatives of great
> quality...please inform me as to where I could receive
> such information...Thank you...
> Grady Carter

How about if I write up a procedure that goes step by step through 
our process and post it either on our website or on some other 
reference location for all to see rather than bury it in a thread. 
Does that work? Since I'm new to this forum, how should I do this?
Brooks Jensen, Editor
LensWork Publishing

Brooks,

If you would do that, I will nominate you for sainthood!

On the group's home page there is a "Files" section where various 
information is posted including some workflows for different 
processes. I will make sure your procedure is placed where it can 
easily be found and will not get lost in the blizzard of messages on 
the list.

One of the goals of the group is to provide as much "open source" 
information as possible. Traditional photographic processes and 
materials are very well documented but with all the new digital 
equipment and materials, much of it proprietary, there is often a 
serious shortage of information. So anything you can add to this 
store of knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

Martin Wesley



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., editor@l... wrote:

> > I would like to know
> > as much as I can about digital negatives, about your
> > materials you use for the negatives and those curves
> > you've mentioned. I do have a darkroom and I would
> > like to make digital contact negatives of great
> > quality...please inform me as to where I could receive
> > such information...Thank you...
> > Grady Carter
> 
> How about if I write up a procedure that goes step by step through 
> our process and post it either on our website or on some other 
> reference location for all to see rather than bury it in a thread. 
> Does that work? Since I'm new to this forum, how should I do this?
> Brooks Jensen, Editor
> LensWork Publishing

> One of the goals of the group is to provide as much "open source" 
> information as possible. Traditional photographic processes and 
> materials are very well documented but with all the new digital 
> equipment and materials, much of it proprietary, there is often a 
> serious shortage of information. So anything you can add to this 
> store of knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

I am convinced that it is not the technology that counts. Technology 
is only a means to an end. All of this is, at least for me, about the 
artwork, the vision, the connection. People who hoard technique 
thinking that they will corner the market or the fame are like those 
who would limit the distribution of paper so only their words are 
published. Do we care what kind of plastic a CD is made out of? Do we 
care what brand of paints a water color artist uses? Does it make a 
difference what kind of typewriter Hemmingway used? Using that logic, 
Dragon Systems should keep voice recognition technology to themselves 
so they can become the most famous of all novelists. How silly!
What format should I send this in? And should I just email it to you 
directly, Martin?
Brooks Jensen, Editor
LensWork Publishing

Brooks,

You can send it to me directly as a Word or text file or simply post 
it on the list as a message. Whatever is more convienitent for you.

Thanks,
Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., editor@l... wrote:
> > One of the goals of the group is to provide as much "open source" 
> > information as possible. Traditional photographic processes and 
> > materials are very well documented but with all the new digital 
> > equipment and materials, much of it proprietary, there is often a 
> > serious shortage of information. So anything you can add to this 
> > store of knowledge would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> I am convinced that it is not the technology that counts. 
Technology 
> is only a means to an end. All of this is, at least for me, about 
the 
> artwork, the vision, the connection. People who hoard technique 
> thinking that they will corner the market or the fame are like 
those 
> who would limit the distribution of paper so only their words are 
> published. Do we care what kind of plastic a CD is made out of? Do 
we 
> care what brand of paints a water color artist uses? Does it make a 
> difference what kind of typewriter Hemmingway used? Using that 
logic, 
> Dragon Systems should keep voice recognition technology to 
themselves 
> so they can become the most famous of all novelists. How silly!
> What format should I send this in? And should I just email it to 
you 

> directly, Martin?
> Brooks Jensen, Editor
> LensWork Publishing

Brooks-

Thanks for taking the time to bring us so up to date.

You have a great GREAT publication. I've only been a subscriber for a 
few issues, but have purchased many back issues. 

You are doing wonderful work. Certainly this is the best BW 
publication I am aware of and hope it continues to be successful. I 
suspect it will, in large part due to your openness to new ideas, and 
a willingness to embrace change rather than fight it.

Here on this list, we believe so strongly in what we are doing, that 
we appear shrill from time to time. But we will not be denied! To 
reject digital is just the craziest...was there such an uproar the 
first time a roll of film was processed by an automatic process in a 
lab? The first time a print was made with a Kodak MACHINE that popped 
the film in one end and a picture out the other end? (in fact, there 
is no doubt that the lab processing machines can make prints in 
greater quantities and faster than inkjet printing, so the "quantity" 
fear of digital distribution is LESS with inkjet printing).

In any event, it means a lot to hear such enlightened support from 
someone like yourself who stands for and produces art with such high 
quality standards... Confirms we really are "fishing in the right 
hole."

Thanks,

Tom O'Connell

TomOC@...
www.thomasoconnell.com