Digital BW, The Print

Some random thoughts.

One thing that occurs to me about naming this new medium is that the 
artists probably will not be a big part of the decision process. I 
think that it is likely to be named by museum directors, art 
conservationists, art critics, gallery owners or common usage.

Things like glicee are ludicrous (I seem to recall reading that in 
French it means to spray or spurt but has a crude connotation that I 
will leave to your imaginations.)

As Cleavis pointed out it will be something practical like "Inkjet 
Print" maybe with some sub classifications such as "Monochrome" 
or "Photographic" tacked on.

This is fine by me. They are ink jet prints and if they are good 
prints then there is no reason to be ashamed of them. People simply 
have no idea how difficult it is to make a quality print in any 
medium unless they have attempted it themselves. People still think 
silver printing is easy.

Hopefully if someone buys a print of any kind it is because they like 
the image. If they really want that piece of art and it is an inkjet 
print they will buy it. It is not like they can go to the next 
gallery and buy the same image in a different medium. You have a 
unique product.

To give some additional perspective. In the Sept/Oct 2001 issue of 
View Camera is an article/portfolio by Joseph Kayne a large format 
color photographer. Early on he says, "The fine art color landscape 
print has recently made significant gains in recognition and 
appreciation throughout the photography world..." Now by my count 
fine art color printing goes back to the 60's with Eliot Porter and 
his dye-transfer prints. Yet the color fine art photographers are 
just now beginning to feel accepted. Inkjet prints are likely to make 
it more quickly than that, but in the art world this medium is only 
an eye blink old.

Joseph ends his piece with:

"With regard to the prints, after the initial large format 
transparencies are exposed, I have them professionally drum scanned 
by Photocraft Labs...at a very high resolution (260MB). The scanned 
images are then cleaned and adjusted via computer using Adobe 
Photoshop. In this program I have the ability, and greater 
flexibility, to make subtle adjustments to contrast and color 
balance, as well as burning and dodging, similar to the methods used 
by black-and-white master printers. I remain faithful to the 
landscape and the original transparency by using only traditional 
darkroom modifications. Once the adjustments are finalized, the image 
is transferred to traditional Fuji archival photographic paper by the 
use of a LightJet 5000 digital enlarger, which applies color lasers. 
The process is done at very high resolution and renders prints in the 
sharpest and finest form, as the final image does not have to pass 
through the lens of an optical enlarger. This process gives me the 
greatest control over the printing process and renders archival 
prints that last for more than 70 years."

Well aside from the fact that he manages to scan his film without 
developing it, this is a straight forward process. The thing that 
strikes me about his statement is that he stands strong behind his 
technology; then hangs his head, shuffles his feet and assures us he 
isn't doing anything that couldn't be done in a traditional darkroom 
(probably in reaction to Christopher Burkett's anti-digital stand); 
then switches back making a strong closing statement about the 
quality of the prints as a product of the process. So I offer this up 
as an example of how you might approach the inkjet print issue. Call 
them something simple like "Carbon Inkjet" and then talk about its 
strength. When the archival question comes up, be very prepared to 
make an honest statement that you feel comfortable with. That is 
about all you can do. I think that if the art is there it will sell.

One last thought on the "hand pulled" issue. Everyone should remember 
that there have been, and are, many great and successful 
photographers who never develop their own film much less get their 
fingers wet making a print. I have read plenty of articles about 
photographers having their shows printed for them. The concept of 
hand made and photography have never been associated. This was one of 
the big painting vs. photography debates 100 years ago and is still 
going on. I think we need to leave these concepts and conceits 
behind, go forward knowing how much time and care we have put into 
our prints regardless of what the uninformed might think.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> One last thought on the "hand pulled" issue. Everyone should 
remember 
> that there have been, and are, many great and successful 
> photographers who never develop their own film much less get 
their 
> fingers wet making a print.


Martin,

I'm with Harvey here; a level-headed thorough post. Thank you.

Given, I am so out of my area about all these gallery issues. I 
guess the hand-pulled analogy that you quote relates to the 
whole mystique of a certain artist, and that relates to the PRICE 
of his work?

(We recently had that traveling Weegee show here in Nashville. 
There were hundreds, literally hundreds, of prints in the show. 
As I walked through the room, I was shocked that these were 
being shown in a museum, in terms of their permanence 
issues. Many were crumpled-edged, stained, faded prints. I 
certainly hope people were not buying similar prints for 
investment, because from what I know of a newspaper 
darkroom 
from those times, the PermaWash/double-fixer factor was pretty 
laughable I'd say. It was 
soup-it-in-the-Dektol-whoosh-it-through-the-stop-and-wiggle-it-i
n-the-fixer, all in record time, when you're on deadline, and then 
another paper comes out tomorrow, so archival means "one 
day".)

In terms of mystique, I was viewing some of the beautiful prints 
of one of the more successful local art photographers recently. 
The gallery owner mentioned, with this certain tone, "Yes, he 
rides a MOTORCYCLE; that's how he gets these pictures". It did 
have some validity to me, in that the scenes were always these 
obscure, rural, out of the way places. But at the same time, I did 
snicker a bit at the tone in her voice when she told me that. I left 
the gallery thinking, "Damn -- I need a motorcycle! Yeah, that's it 
-- a motorcycle! That's what missing from my pictures - a 
motorcycle! That's what would put me on the map - a motorcycle! 
Yeah, that'll be my new schtick - a motorcycle". 

The motorcycle thing was that guy's "branding". Soon, (already), 
everybody will be known by two or three words, ie. "Oh yeah, he's 
that guy that does ____ ____ ____". If you can't fill in those 
blanks within three seconds, then you haven't arrived on the 
scene yet. You're still under the radar scope.

------

But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all 
relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it 
simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet 
printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that there is 
a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet prints 
have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something 
that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser 
can't resell it and make money? 

----

This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just got 
up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our 
underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching 
ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.

I'd say two issues, that people have seen their dotty inkjet prints fade in a couple of years, and 
that there is a perception that the mechanized process allows one to run out tens of thousands of 
prints like an offset press. It doesn't matter that they can't see rosettes of offset screens, the 
opinion is formed before they look at the image itself.

Tim

> But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all 
> relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it
> simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet
> printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that there
> is a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet
> prints have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something
> that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser
> can't resell it and make money? 
> 

--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com
&
http://www.borderless-photos.de

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
snip...
> But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all 
> relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it 
> simply come down to investment confidence?

Yes, and also Tim's point about easily flooding the world with 
identical prints, lowering the scarcity value (which is kinda BS). One 
arguement for the relavence of editioning digital output.
But also the perception of craft. People think this is easy, and if 
it's easy it's not special, therefore it doesn't have much value.
People think we're just picking one of these babies up at Costco, 
pluging it in and hitting the print command. We come off like 
hobbiests.
Hell, if anybody can get one and do it, what are you smokin' to come 
up with that price man?

> This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just got 
> up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our 
> underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching 
> ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.

Should be a game on soon, don't rush it.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> People think we're just picking one of these babies up at 
Costco, 
> pluging it in and hitting the print command.


At least part of that sentence IS TRUE. So it's not totally 
unfounded. I would suggest to Epson that they create a 
"sub-brand" for their pro printers, and call it something other than 
"Epson". Kinda like Toyota did with Lexus, and Nissan did with 
Infiniti. I'd almost suggest the same for Nikon to do that with their 
digital pro line.

I came in to all this technology after Iris, and Giclee, but at least 
when you say the word Giclee correctly, it does have some mojo 
and romance to it. Even the word Iris has some degree of 
curiosity.

If I were Epson, I'd leave everything alone, from the 13x19 size 
printers and below. But starting at 24" models, I'd change the 
name to something more luxurious and mysterious. Actually, 
from this point forward, my 7000 is now known as The Insipid 
7000 (translation: The Fader, but no one but Nina knows that). 
See -- doesn't that already seem like I could charge more for the 
prints!? We've got to get away from "computer brands" and work 
toward "art brands".

-The Tuck

Well, floks, inorder to reestablish some artistic equilibrium I took my
rolleiflex for a walk today into the peace of parc guell. whilst i was
shooting, I found the answer - a used condom under a bush - just right for
my found objects series. So here is what I'm going to do. The poxy 7000 just
isn't big enough for serious artists, like what I am, so I'm going to create
one of those 'tile' pictures of this photo, 4 7000 widths square. Get Mwords
to print them up which will give me a condom picture 96inches square, mount
and matte to 180inches square using used white carpet tiles from an
abandoned convent - THEN go back to the gallery - boy will he be impressed!
have I just dragged the conversation way down?

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tucker" <mark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:34 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Name Issue and Other Ramblings


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
> wrote:
> > People think we're just picking one of these babies up at
> Costco,
> > pluging it in and hitting the print command.
>
>
> At least part of that sentence IS TRUE. So it's not totally
> unfounded. I would suggest to Epson that they create a
> "sub-brand" for their pro printers, and call it something other than
> "Epson". Kinda like Toyota did with Lexus, and Nissan did with
> Infiniti. I'd almost suggest the same for Nikon to do that with their
> digital pro line.
>
> I came in to all this technology after Iris, and Giclee, but at least
> when you say the word Giclee correctly, it does have some mojo
> and romance to it. Even the word Iris has some degree of
> curiosity.
>
> If I were Epson, I'd leave everything alone, from the 13x19 size
> printers and below. But starting at 24" models, I'd change the
> name to something more luxurious and mysterious. Actually,
> from this point forward, my 7000 is now known as The Insipid
> 7000 (translation: The Fader, but no one but Nina knows that).
> See -- doesn't that already seem like I could charge more for the
> prints!? We've got to get away from "computer brands" and work
> toward "art brands".
>
> -The Tuck
>
>
>
> 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 10/7/01 11:50 AM, Julian Thomas at julianthomas@... wrote:

> I'm going to create
> one of those 'tile' pictures of this photo, 4 7000 widths square. Get Mwords
> to print them up which will give me a condom picture 96inches square, mount
> and matte to 180inches square using used white carpet tiles from an
> abandoned convent - THEN go back to the gallery

remember us when you're rich

-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

> remember us when you're rich
>
> --
The rate I'm going, by the time I make a living out of this stuff, I'll have
so few braincells I won't even remember my own name.

Julian

I do think we have an advantage over all the Joe Smo inkjet printers out 
there. Ours are long tonal scale Black and white inkjets! These are not 
common at all. I would think its pretty ovbvious that us Black and white 
Inkers are doing something extraordinary!
Steve M.
snip>
In a message dated 10/07/2001 8:31:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
grdglass@... writes:


> Yes, and that the guy down the street is able to make injet prints too.  
> It's 
> a technology that is available to the masses and, thereby, loses its 
> mystique.  
> 
> Helene
> 
> 
> 




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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> 
> > remember us when you're rich
> >
> > --
> The rate I'm going, by the time I make a living out of this stuff, I'll have
> so few braincells I won't even remember my own name.

Man, you're catching on really quick. Write all our names down 
somewhere now...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., sdmey4@a... wrote:
> I do think we have an advantage over all the Joe Smo inkjet 
printers out 
> there. Ours are long tonal scale Black and white inkjets! These 
are not 
> common at all.


I think you are missing the very big picture; you need to zoom out 
much further. In the grand scale, you are being lumped into this 
one big category called "computer-generated inkjet printers", in 
their eyes. I'm not in any way defending their perspective, I am 
merely offering an opinion of what I think the vast majority of 
art/gallery people think. 

They are not informed enough to make the subtle distinction 
between professional quads and consumer dyes. You do this 
every day, so you're super-aware of the distinctions. But I think 
we're trying to address an entire cultural opinion of this field; and 
I'd say that the masses do not make these distinctions.

We must first force ourselves to think like them; to get inside 
their heads and understand their fears and apprehensions, in 
order to begin to alter the mindset of this issue.

Julian, 

If you do that you will certainly make a name for yourself....but come 

to think of it....I think it has already been done....

Of course you could also sell it to the corporate offices of Condomania...I understand they recently started retail operations in Europe.

Steadman

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Julian Thomas 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 10:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The Name Issue and Other Ramblings


  Well, floks, inorder to reestablish some artistic equilibrium I took my
  rolleiflex for a walk today into the peace of parc guell. whilst i was
  shooting, I found the answer - a used condom under a bush - just right for
  my found objects series. So here is what I'm going to do. The poxy 7000 just
  isn't big enough for serious artists, like what I am, so I'm going to create
  one of those 'tile' pictures of this photo, 4 7000 widths square. Get Mwords
  to print them up which will give me a condom picture 96inches square, mount
  and matte to 180inches square using used white carpet tiles from an
  abandoned convent - THEN go back to the gallery - boy will he be impressed!
  have I just dragged the conversation way down?

  Julian
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Mark Tucker" <mark@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:34 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Name Issue and Other Ramblings


  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
  > wrote:
  > > People think we're just picking one of these babies up at
  > Costco,
  > > pluging it in and hitting the print command.
  >
  >
  > At least part of that sentence IS TRUE. So it's not totally
  > unfounded. I would suggest to Epson that they create a
  > "sub-brand" for their pro printers, and call it something other than
  > "Epson". Kinda like Toyota did with Lexus, and Nissan did with
  > Infiniti. I'd almost suggest the same for Nikon to do that with their
  > digital pro line.
  >
  > I came in to all this technology after Iris, and Giclee, but at least
  > when you say the word Giclee correctly, it does have some mojo
  > and romance to it. Even the word Iris has some degree of
  > curiosity.
  >
  > If I were Epson, I'd leave everything alone, from the 13x19 size
  > printers and below. But starting at 24" models, I'd change the
  > name to something more luxurious and mysterious. Actually,
  > from this point forward, my 7000 is now known as The Insipid
  > 7000 (translation: The Fader, but no one but Nina knows that).
  > See -- doesn't that already seem like I could charge more for the
  > prints!? We've got to get away from "computer brands" and work
  > toward "art brands".
  >
  > -The Tuck
  >
  >
  >
  > 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]

Excellent post Martin.  I don't understand the need to justify using
photoshop to better a transparancy... Do funky darkroom techniques need
justification? If someone saw a wonderful solarized image done in the
darkroom do we now have to report that it was *not* solarized if photoshop?


snip... quote of Joseph Kayne:
> is transferred to traditional Fuji archival photographic paper by the
> use of a LightJet 5000 digital enlarger, which applies color lasers.
> The process is done at very high resolution and renders prints in the
> sharpest and finest form, as the final image does not have to pass
> through the lens of an optical enlarger.

No, but it is passed thru 3 ccd's of an interpolating output device!


Carolyn

I thought you said you had a hard time getting this down in words...?  This
post is right on... I totally agree, we are lumped in with the masses of
desktop printers everywhere. Whether you are using a small, medium or large
output inkjet and different inks makes no never mind to joe blow. I find it
disheartening to think it makes no never mind to art/gallery people also.



Do you have a special bong mix to "get inside their heads" Mark?? ;-)


Carolyn

> I think you are missing the very big picture; you need to zoom out
> much further. In the grand scale, you are being lumped into this
> one big category called "computer-generated inkjet printers", in
> their eyes. I'm not in any way defending their perspective, I am
> merely offering an opinion of what I think the vast majority of
> art/gallery people think.
> 
> They are not informed enough to make the subtle distinction
> between professional quads and consumer dyes. You do this
> every day, so you're super-aware of the distinctions. But I think
> we're trying to address an entire cultural opinion of this field; and
> I'd say that the masses do not make these distinctions.
> 
> We must first force ourselves to think like them; to get inside
> their heads and understand their fears and apprehensions, in
> order to begin to alter the mindset of this issue.

No, you need a unique brand, the motorcycle is taken... Mongolian Camel
Abstracts?  Tibetan Yak Blurs?


ok, so I'm *not* comedy channel material... :-(

> the gallery thinking, "Damn -- I need a motorcycle! Yeah, that's it
> -- a motorcycle! That's what missing from my pictures - a
> motorcycle! That's what would put me on the map - a motorcycle!
> Yeah, that'll be my new schtick - a motorcycle".

Julian,

Not at all. I think you are right in the Art Scene groove there. Just 
don't propose it for a Brooklyn Museum show....unless you want to make a 
serious splash (umm...unfelicitous wording?) with the daily media. From 
what one reads Mayor Giuliani and co. sre very straight-laced these days 
(g)

Cheers,

Nina

>Get Mwords
>to print them up which will give me a condom picture 96inches square, mount
>and matte to 180inches square using used white carpet tiles from an
>abandoned convent - THEN go back to the gallery - boy will he be impressed!
>have I just dragged the conversation way down?

Nina,
What is the French scene like? Any problems with inkjet prints?

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "ncm" <ncm@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 7:45 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Name Issue and Other Ramblings


> Julian,
>
> Not at all. I think you are right in the Art Scene groove there. Just
> don't propose it for a Brooklyn Museum show....unless you want to make a
> serious splash (umm...unfelicitous wording?) with the daily media. From
> what one reads Mayor Giuliani and co. sre very straight-laced these days
> (g)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nina
>
> >Get Mwords
> >to print them up which will give me a condom picture 96inches square,
mount
> >and matte to 180inches square using used white carpet tiles from an
> >abandoned convent - THEN go back to the gallery - boy will he be
impressed!
> >have I just dragged the conversation way down?
>
>
> 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 is my 3rd try at this note...Netscape crashed *twice* while trying to compose/send this,  I get the
feeling that someone doesn't want me to post it.  :- (

Mark Tucker wrote:

> Martin Wesley"
>  wrote:
> > One last thought on the "hand pulled" issue. Everyone should
> remember
> > that there have been, and are, many great and successful
> > photographers who never develop their own film much less get
> their
> > fingers wet making a print.
>
>
> Martin,
>
> Given, I am so out of my area about all these gallery issues. I
> guess the hand-pulled analogy that you quote relates to the
> whole mystique of a certain artist, and that relates to the PRICE
> of his work?
>
> (We recently had that traveling Weegee show here in Nashville.
> There were hundreds, literally hundreds, of prints in the show.
> As I walked through the room, I was shocked that these were
> being shown in a museum, in terms of their permanence
> issues. Many were crumpled-edged, stained, faded prints. I
> certainly hope people were not buying similar prints for
> investment, because from what I know of a newspaper
> darkroom
> from those times, the PermaWash/double-fixer factor was pretty
> laughable I'd say. It was
> soup-it-in-the-Dektol-whoosh-it-through-the-stop-and-wiggle-it-i
> n-the-fixer, all in record time, when you're on deadline, and then
> another paper comes out tomorrow, so archival means "one
> day".)

I think the Weegee prints have entered a different area of the 'art' market....Which like anything else, is
complex.  The Weegee images are valuable because they have become an 'ethnographic' statement of the times
during which they were shot.  And I think that's a valid concept.

It's not unlike collecting the great tribal masks from New Guinea, in the South Pacific.  These masks, even
under ideal storage conditions, degrade rather quickly (as they are made with relatively live organic
materials). They are collected as 'Art', and are fabulous forms of 'primitive' art (I suppose that's the
ultimate form of 'outsider' art), as well as saying something about the New Guinean culture (or African, or
whatever).

Sometimes, the very fact that these images degrade, *adds* to their value!  We live in an odd and complicated
world, both artistically and economically.  I don't, finally, think that it should that surprising that it is
so complex, but it adds to all of our collective frustrations in trying to promote our own work. And it might
even be counter productive to try and 'sell' our work, after all, it is, or should be produced for 'art's
sake', and not for commercial gain.  Not that there is anything wrong with making money off of our artwork!

We are all frustrated because the 'rules' are stacked against us.  They are created to exclude...It's easier
that way for the money people, collectors, and academics.  This is not bitterness on my part, just a note of
the way it is, a truism, if you will...Like the 'Five Keys to Success'.  The sooner we actually accept that
this *is* the way things are, and the sooner we don't try to fight it, the more time and energy that we'll
have to produce more work.  :- )

> In terms of mystique, I was viewing some of the beautiful prints
> of one of the more successful local art photographers recently.
> The gallery owner mentioned, with this certain tone, "Yes, he
> rides a MOTORCYCLE; that's how he gets these pictures". It did
> have some validity to me, in that the scenes were always these
> obscure, rural, out of the way places. But at the same time, I did
> snicker a bit at the tone in her voice when she told me that. I left
> the gallery thinking, "Damn -- I need a motorcycle! Yeah, that's it
> -- a motorcycle! That's what missing from my pictures - a
> motorcycle! That's what would put me on the map - a motorcycle!
> Yeah, that'll be my new schtick - a motorcycle".
>
> The motorcycle thing was that guy's "branding". Soon, (already),
> everybody will be known by two or three words, ie. "Oh yeah, he's
> that guy that does ____ ____ ____". If you can't fill in those
> blanks within three seconds, then you haven't arrived on the
> scene yet. You're still under the radar scope.

This is absolutely true.  Ask any artist who has been represented by a gallery or dealer...They 'sell'
branding.  Should he or she tell their dealer that they are changing artistic directions, and the dealers
absolutely *panic*.  Because then, it will be harder to sell.  Finally, the majority of buyers do not want to
think.  There was an article in the NY Times a few months ago about the current art auctions and 'editioned'
work.  Among other things it said that:

First:  If a museum owns one of the multiples, the rest will sell for big bucks, because the museum has put
its stamp of approval on that particular piece of art.  They noted that these buyers will now pay more for a
copy of the 'multiple', than a unique piece from the same artist.   (Note the insecurity, and non-thinkingness
of the buyers)

Second:  People will pay more (*way* more) for a 'multiple editioned' piece of art at a prestigious auction,
than they will at the gallery that originally sold the piece.  Soooooooooo Stoooooooooopid!  The NY Times
interviewed several incredulous art dealers who had artists, whose work got way 'over valued' (dealer's words)
at the Spring auctions.  They told stories about when the new owners came into the originating gallery (after
the auction) to buy more pieces from the same artist, at a much lower price.  When the gallery owners queried
why they didn't just come to the gallery in the first place, the general answer was about 'prestige', and
being sure that it was valuble...Which is to say that they didn't trust their own judgment.  So sad, and
disheartening.

> ------
>
> But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all
> relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it
> simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet
> printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that there is
> a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet prints
> have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something
> that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser
> can't resell it and make money?

The permanence issue *is* still a fair issue, beyond the question of investment protection.  I think people
really do worry that their beloved artworks will just go away...It scares them.  And given the ongoing
discussions on this list, permanence is *still* an issue.  This fear is no doubt compounded by the fact that
the original inkjet prints (iris) were sold as stable, and they were not.  Once bitten, twice shy.

> ----
>
> This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just got
> up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our
> underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching
> ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.

I think you have made fine points which are well presented, thank you.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
Ask any artist who has been represented by a gallery or 
dealer...They 'sell'
> branding.  Should he or she tell their dealer that they are 
changing artistic directions, and the dealers
> absolutely *panic*.


Don't you know, secretly, very secretly, that William Wegman is 
just sick of carting around those damn dogs... Don't you just 
know that he panics at the thought of having to do new work; 
loading them up again in the stationwagon, buying the dog 
clothes, getting the doggie downers down their throats, etc.

Can you imagine how restricting that would be? "Can I just shoot 
a non-dog picture for a change...?" 

The guy's probably made a mint by now, (and I'd personally say 
that he's ready for a change), but I wonder if he really loves it, or if 
he's just milking it.

It's fresh on my mind because he was featured this morning on 
"Sunday Morning", about a new book called something like "A 
Sense of Place". And you know he always gets the TV coverage, 
because dogs always make good TV, and even better if they're in 
human clothing.

I'm not slamming him, but it crossed my mind this morning while 
watching that if he's kinda "in a rut", if you know what I mean...

-MT

Mark Tucker wrote:

> SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> Ask any artist who has been represented by a gallery or
> dealer...They 'sell'
> > branding.  Should he or she tell their dealer that they are
> changing artistic directions, and the dealers
> > absolutely *panic*.
>
>
> Don't you know, secretly, very secretly, that William Wegman is
> just sick of carting around those damn dogs... Don't you just
> know that he panics at the thought of having to do new work;
> loading them up again in the stationwagon, buying the dog
> clothes, getting the doggie downers down their throats, etc.
>
> Can you imagine how restricting that would be? "Can I just shoot
> a non-dog picture for a change...?"
>
> The guy's probably made a mint by now, (and I'd personally say
> that he's ready for a change), but I wonder if he really loves it, or if
> he's just milking it.
>
> It's fresh on my mind because he was featured this morning on
> "Sunday Morning", about a new book called something like "A
> Sense of Place". And you know he always gets the TV coverage,
> because dogs always make good TV, and even better if they're in
> human clothing.
>
> I'm not slamming him, but it crossed my mind this morning while
> watching that if he's kinda "in a rut", if you know what I mean...

It's probably his gravy train, and I suspect that he *is* tired of them (the dogs), but he does do a lot of
other multi media work as well.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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

The people I've admired in the arts "seem" to move about without concern for how a new body of work will effect 
marketing or whatever. There is the illusion that someone like Wegman would surely have made enough money by now, 
and being an artist at heart, would use success to gain the freedom to do whatever he wants, rather than be trapped by 
continuously having to produce more of same.
Harvey and Mark, anyone, do you think it's possible to have artistic career success and remain free to progress as an 
artist? Or is it just an illusion, and always some kind of compromise? My observation is that it would take a remarkable 
individual to remain clearheaded in the middle of success.
Which is why I make a constant point of remaining unsuccessful...
yeah, that's it...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
(snip)> ------
> 
> But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all 
> relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it 
> simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet 
> printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that 
there is 
> a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet 
prints 
> have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something 
> that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser 
> can't resell it and make money? 
> 
> ----

Mark,

Fame in the art work seem to ride a great deal on having a strong ego 
and taking the positon that whatever you are doing is inherently 
better than anything else because you are doing it. If you can hold 
and project that thought, you have a much higher chance of success.

People buy all sorts of numbered off-set litho prints of paintings by 
famous artists for hundreds of dollars that are printed with dye 
based ink and will fade long before your inkjet prints.

All I can do is repeat that the art should sell itself indepent of 
the medium. I really don't believe that the main market for 
photographers today are the collectors. It is people looking for 
something to hang on their wall because they love it. 

> 
> This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just 
got 
> up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our 
> underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching 
> ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.

While you've got Jon there get his opinion.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens" 
<t.spragens@c...> wrote:
> I'd say two issues, that people have seen their dotty inkjet prints 
fade in a couple of years,

Tim,

They have seen their wedding pictures from 10 years ago start to fade 
away too.

> and 
> that there is a perception that the mechanized process allows one 
to run out tens of thousands of 
> prints like an offset press.

They think exactly the same thing about silver photography!

 It doesn't matter that they can't see rosettes of offset screens, 
the 
> opinion is formed before they look at the image itself.

Then they are prejudiced. There is nothing you can do but to go 
forward in the face of that and do the best you can. This is only 
going to resolve with time and sustained effort.

Martin

> 
> Tim
> 
> > But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all 
> > relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it
> > simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet
> > printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that 
there

> > is a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet
> > prints have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something
> > that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser
> > can't resell it and make money? 
> > 
> 
> --
> Tim Spragens
> http://www.borderless-photos.com
> &
> http://www.borderless-photos.de

Harvey, 
Thanks for contributing that message.  Lots of good stuff in it. 

On to the auctions!
Steadman 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: SKID Photography 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 8:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The Name Issue and Other Ramblings


  This is my 3rd try at this note...Netscape crashed *twice* while trying to compose/send this,  I get the
  feeling that someone doesn't want me to post it.  :- (

  Mark Tucker wrote:

  > Martin Wesley"
  >  wrote:
  > > One last thought on the "hand pulled" issue. Everyone should
  > remember
  > > that there have been, and are, many great and successful
  > > photographers who never develop their own film much less get
  > their
  > > fingers wet making a print.
  >
  >
  > Martin,
  >
  > Given, I am so out of my area about all these gallery issues. I
  > guess the hand-pulled analogy that you quote relates to the
  > whole mystique of a certain artist, and that relates to the PRICE
  > of his work?
  >
  > (We recently had that traveling Weegee show here in Nashville.
  > There were hundreds, literally hundreds, of prints in the show.
  > As I walked through the room, I was shocked that these were
  > being shown in a museum, in terms of their permanence
  > issues. Many were crumpled-edged, stained, faded prints. I
  > certainly hope people were not buying similar prints for
  > investment, because from what I know of a newspaper
  > darkroom
  > from those times, the PermaWash/double-fixer factor was pretty
  > laughable I'd say. It was
  > soup-it-in-the-Dektol-whoosh-it-through-the-stop-and-wiggle-it-i
  > n-the-fixer, all in record time, when you're on deadline, and then
  > another paper comes out tomorrow, so archival means "one
  > day".)

  I think the Weegee prints have entered a different area of the 'art' market....Which like anything else, is
  complex.  The Weegee images are valuable because they have become an 'ethnographic' statement of the times
  during which they were shot.  And I think that's a valid concept.

  It's not unlike collecting the great tribal masks from New Guinea, in the South Pacific.  These masks, even
  under ideal storage conditions, degrade rather quickly (as they are made with relatively live organic
  materials). They are collected as 'Art', and are fabulous forms of 'primitive' art (I suppose that's the
  ultimate form of 'outsider' art), as well as saying something about the New Guinean culture (or African, or
  whatever).

  Sometimes, the very fact that these images degrade, *adds* to their value!  We live in an odd and complicated
  world, both artistically and economically.  I don't, finally, think that it should that surprising that it is
  so complex, but it adds to all of our collective frustrations in trying to promote our own work. And it might
  even be counter productive to try and 'sell' our work, after all, it is, or should be produced for 'art's
  sake', and not for commercial gain.  Not that there is anything wrong with making money off of our artwork!

  We are all frustrated because the 'rules' are stacked against us.  They are created to exclude...It's easier
  that way for the money people, collectors, and academics.  This is not bitterness on my part, just a note of
  the way it is, a truism, if you will...Like the 'Five Keys to Success'.  The sooner we actually accept that
  this *is* the way things are, and the sooner we don't try to fight it, the more time and energy that we'll
  have to produce more work.  :- )

  > In terms of mystique, I was viewing some of the beautiful prints
  > of one of the more successful local art photographers recently.
  > The gallery owner mentioned, with this certain tone, "Yes, he
  > rides a MOTORCYCLE; that's how he gets these pictures". It did
  > have some validity to me, in that the scenes were always these
  > obscure, rural, out of the way places. But at the same time, I did
  > snicker a bit at the tone in her voice when she told me that. I left
  > the gallery thinking, "Damn -- I need a motorcycle! Yeah, that's it
  > -- a motorcycle! That's what missing from my pictures - a
  > motorcycle! That's what would put me on the map - a motorcycle!
  > Yeah, that'll be my new schtick - a motorcycle".
  >
  > The motorcycle thing was that guy's "branding". Soon, (already),
  > everybody will be known by two or three words, ie. "Oh yeah, he's
  > that guy that does ____ ____ ____". If you can't fill in those
  > blanks within three seconds, then you haven't arrived on the
  > scene yet. You're still under the radar scope.

  This is absolutely true.  Ask any artist who has been represented by a gallery or dealer...They 'sell'
  branding.  Should he or she tell their dealer that they are changing artistic directions, and the dealers
  absolutely *panic*.  Because then, it will be harder to sell.  Finally, the majority of buyers do not want to
  think.  There was an article in the NY Times a few months ago about the current art auctions and 'editioned'
  work.  Among other things it said that:

  First:  If a museum owns one of the multiples, the rest will sell for big bucks, because the museum has put
  its stamp of approval on that particular piece of art.  They noted that these buyers will now pay more for a
  copy of the 'multiple', than a unique piece from the same artist.   (Note the insecurity, and non-thinkingness
  of the buyers)

  Second:  People will pay more (*way* more) for a 'multiple editioned' piece of art at a prestigious auction,
  than they will at the gallery that originally sold the piece.  Soooooooooo Stoooooooooopid!  The NY Times
  interviewed several incredulous art dealers who had artists, whose work got way 'over valued' (dealer's words)
  at the Spring auctions.  They told stories about when the new owners came into the originating gallery (after
  the auction) to buy more pieces from the same artist, at a much lower price.  When the gallery owners queried
  why they didn't just come to the gallery in the first place, the general answer was about 'prestige', and
  being sure that it was valuble...Which is to say that they didn't trust their own judgment.  So sad, and
  disheartening.

  > ------
  >
  > But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all
  > relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it
  > simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet
  > printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that there is
  > a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet prints
  > have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something
  > that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser
  > can't resell it and make money?

  The permanence issue *is* still a fair issue, beyond the question of investment protection.  I think people
  really do worry that their beloved artworks will just go away...It scares them.  And given the ongoing
  discussions on this list, permanence is *still* an issue.  This fear is no doubt compounded by the fact that
  the original inkjet prints (iris) were sold as stable, and they were not.  Once bitten, twice shy.

  > ----
  >
  > This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just got
  > up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our
  > underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching
  > ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.

  I think you have made fine points which are well presented, thank you.

  Harvey Ferdschneider
  partner, SKID Photography, NYC


  [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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Interesting points Mark.  

I agree must be tired of doggy shots.  But Wegman had a unique way of capturing the farce of human fashion and affectation, by using dogs in fashion clothes.  

Have you seen his children's video on the alphabet?  He uses his dogs to make the letters in strange and entertaining ways. Great for kids. Creative.

But what about that guy that does the "Blue Dog"  paintings?  Tell me about milking...

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Tucker 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 8:16 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Name Issue and Other Ramblings


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
  <skid@b...> wrote:
  Ask any artist who has been represented by a gallery or 
  dealer...They 'sell'
  > branding.  Should he or she tell their dealer that they are 
  changing artistic directions, and the dealers
  > absolutely *panic*.


  Don't you know, secretly, very secretly, that William Wegman is 
  just sick of carting around those damn dogs... Don't you just 
  know that he panics at the thought of having to do new work; 
  loading them up again in the stationwagon, buying the dog 
  clothes, getting the doggie downers down their throats, etc.

  Can you imagine how restricting that would be? "Can I just shoot 
  a non-dog picture for a change...?" 

  The guy's probably made a mint by now, (and I'd personally say 
  that he's ready for a change), but I wonder if he really loves it, or if 
  he's just milking it.

  It's fresh on my mind because he was featured this morning on 
  "Sunday Morning", about a new book called something like "A 
  Sense of Place". And you know he always gets the TV coverage, 
  because dogs always make good TV, and even better if they're in 
  human clothing.

  I'm not slamming him, but it crossed my mind this morning while 
  watching that if he's kinda "in a rut", if you know what I mean...

  -MT


        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]

I just looked in on this thread, so forgive me if this has already been 
stated, but I find that the bias against inkjet prints is that customers 
think they are produced by a computer. There is a major negative connotation 
to the print made using a computer. Some people don't understand it is only a 
tool; I have never heard of a print of any sort made without using some sort 
of tool, but some people think photos made using the computer as a tool are 
not real photos! 
George J Kunze

Martin Wesley wrote:

> Thanks Harvey. I only want to add that in the San Francisco area I
> have seen a pretty good acceptance of Cibachromes in galleries.
> Especially the work of Christopher Burkett who is truely brillant.
> His large prints have been selling well. Oddly enough he has adopted
> a very strong anti-digital stance and is staying with Cibachrome.
>
> http://www.christopherburkett.com/
>
> Click on the "No Digital" in the red circle with the red slach
> through it if you want to have your blood boiled. Otherwise pass.
>

OK....we are in agreement.  Christopher Burkett is an idiot.  ;- )

It reminds me of the old joke:
Guy in hotel offers a sweet young thing a million dollars to 'sleep' him.
She replies affirmatively.
then guy changes hi mind as says, how about $20?
She replies, "What kind of a girl do you think I am?"
He replies, " We already *know* what kind of a girl you are....We are just negotiating price now"  ;- )

If it's ok to do prints from an 'original', do contrast masks and whatever, it seems odd that it's not ok to
do the same via digital reproduction...we already know what kind of a guy he is,........... ;- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

> I just looked in on this thread, so forgive me if this has already been
> stated, but I find that the bias against inkjet prints is that customers
> think they are produced by a computer. There is a major negative connotation
> to the print made using a computer. Some people don't understand it is only a
> tool; I have never heard of a print of any sort made without using some sort
> of tool, but some people think photos made using the computer as a tool are
> not real photos!
> George J Kunze

People also forget that a camera is just a tool, as well.  How else can we account for so many of those top of
the line cameras being sold?  ;- )

I remember once, when I had just done a limited edition portfolio of (B&W silver prints) of flowers.  It was
part of a collaboration with a garden designer (we were doing a book together...It was never published).
Anyway, I went to one of his gardens, that he had designed for one of his 'rich ladies', to photograph a
particular plant.  This woman, whose garden it was, said that she was completely overwhelmed by the beauty of
the flower prints in the portfolio, and wondered why her photos didn't look like mine...After all, she used
the same camera and film that I did.  Well...after a while, we went out to the garden (which was
breathtaking), and I start to shoot.  All of a sudden, she got this wonderful smile on her face, and she said:
"I've figured it out!  You use a *tripod*...That's it!" (A true story)

Yeah, right.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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

Harvey wrote:

snip...
> "I've figured it out!  You use a *tripod*...That's it!" (A true story)


Now *that's* funny!!!   LOL

C

In *total* agreement about bluedog guy!  ;- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


Steadman Uhlich wrote:

> Interesting points Mark.
>
> I agree must be tired of doggy shots.  But Wegman had a unique way of capturing the farce of human fashion
> and affectation, by using dogs in fashion clothes.
>
> Have you seen his children's video on the alphabet?  He uses his dogs to make the letters in strange and
> entertaining ways. Great for kids. Creative.
>
> But what about that guy that does the "Blue Dog"  paintings?  Tell me about milking...
>
> Steadman
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Mark Tucker
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 8:16 PM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Name Issue and Other Ramblings
>
>
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
>   <skid@b...> wrote:
>   Ask any artist who has been represented by a gallery or
>   dealer...They 'sell'
>   > branding.  Should he or she tell their dealer that they are
>   changing artistic directions, and the dealers
>   > absolutely *panic*.
>
>
>   Don't you know, secretly, very secretly, that William Wegman is
>   just sick of carting around those damn dogs... Don't you just
>   know that he panics at the thought of having to do new work;
>   loading them up again in the stationwagon, buying the dog
>   clothes, getting the doggie downers down their throats, etc.
>
>   Can you imagine how restricting that would be? "Can I just shoot
>   a non-dog picture for a change...?"
>
>   The guy's probably made a mint by now, (and I'd personally say
>   that he's ready for a change), but I wonder if he really loves it, or if
>   he's just milking it.
>
>   It's fresh on my mind because he was featured this morning on
>   "Sunday Morning", about a new book called something like "A
>   Sense of Place". And you know he always gets the TV coverage,
>   because dogs always make good TV, and even better if they're in
>   human clothing.
>
>   I'm not slamming him, but it crossed my mind this morning while
>   watching that if he's kinda "in a rut", if you know what I mean...
>
>   -MT
>
>
>         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]
>
>
>                    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]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
> Martin Wesley wrote:
(snip)

> > http://www.christopherburkett.com/
> >
> > Click on the "No Digital" in the red circle with the red slach
> > through it if you want to have your blood boiled. Otherwise pass.
> >
> 
> OK....we are in agreement.  Christopher Burkett is an idiot.  ;- )
> 
> It reminds me of the old joke:
> Guy in hotel offers a sweet young thing a million dollars 
to 'sleep' him.
> She replies affirmatively.
> then guy changes hi mind as says, how about $20?
> She replies, "What kind of a girl do you think I am?"
> He replies, " We already *know* what kind of a girl you are....We 
are just negotiating price now"  ;- )
> 
> If it's ok to do prints from an 'original', do contrast masks and 
whatever, it seems odd that it's not ok to
> do the same via digital reproduction...we already know what kind of 
a guy he is,........... ;- )

Harvey,

It suddenly strikes me that he is a man who has painted himself into 
a corner. One of the ideas of silver B&W fine art printing is that 
you did the best you could in the way of materials and processing to 
ensure the maximum live of your prints. With the advent of 70 year 
Fuji color materials and 200 year color inkjet, he is not adhereing 
to that concept. Seems like he is on the wrong side of the limb he is 
sawing off.

Martin

> > > http://www.christopherburkett.com/
> > >
> > > Click on the "No Digital" in the red circle with the red slach
> > > through it if you want to have your blood boiled. Otherwise pass.
> > >
> >
> > OK....we are in agreement.  Christopher Burkett is an idiot.  ;- )
> >
> <snip>
>
> Harvey,
>
> It suddenly strikes me that he is a man who has painted himself into
> a corner. One of the ideas of silver B&W fine art printing is that
> you did the best you could in the way of materials and processing to
> ensure the maximum live of your prints. With the advent of 70 year
> Fuji color materials and 200 year color inkjet, he is not adhereing
> to that concept. Seems like he is on the wrong side of the limb he is
> sawing off.
>
> Martin

It reminds me of the old adage:  'Time wounds all heels'......and I've got time.  :-D

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
do you think it's possible to have artistic career success and 
remain free to progress as an 
> artist? Or is it just an illusion, and always some kind of 
compromise? My observation is that it would take a remarkable 
> individual to remain clearheaded in the middle of success.
> Which is why I make a constant point of remaining 
unsuccessful...
> yeah, that's it...
> Tyler

I never met you, Tyler, but I swear I could almost hear you saying 
that last line above; (but the scene is like one from BarFly -- you 
as Mickey Rourke, sitting on a barstool, with that long cigarette 
ash, the ice klinking around in your glass of cheap scotch, 
smelling like yesterday's clothes, and mumbling this weird 
mantra over and over, "Wegman, Meyerwitz, Sturges, Fink, Mann 
oh Mann, whatta they got that I ain't got...?")

I don't why you're asking me, pal. I'm just a guy. All I try to do is 
live WAY below my means, and keep my overhead very low. That 
keeps me from having to say Yes when I don't want to. Right 
now, I think I'm going a bit overboard; I'm selling my house and 
starting to live in an RV. I own an office building that's an old 
house, and the RV stays there. My goal is to have everything paid 
off and have a good cushion. I want to not be tempted too much 
by creature comforts; I want to hit the road and travel in the US in 
this RV, and keep traveling and shooting internationally. I've 
always known I'd never be successful on any kind of grand level, 
because I'm not wired to play that game. My new mantra is "keep 
it simple", and this NY/DC thing has made me realize that time is 
short, and that it's a sin to waste time.

I'd think it would be tough to find success in one area ("Maybe 
today I'll paint a blue dog...."), and then see the money, but then 
find that it's not providing nourishment for the soul, but it is 
paying the mortgage. I just always try to never get on that squirrel 
cage wheel; because it's tough to get off once it starts spinning.

If there has been anything positive about these last four weeks, 
it's that when I walk by a magazine stand and see yet another 
cheesy celebrity portrait, it just seems so silly. Hopefully we'll get 
back to some degree of "content".

Harvey:
I got a good laugh when I read his disortatioon on why he finds digital to
be fake. He quite well forgets that he is not the only one who ever made
Cibachrome Prints.

You can do just as much manipulation with masks and color filtration in
conventional printing as you can in digital. It just takes you a lot longer
using conventional methods.

Jim Davis
http://www.visual-artists.com
davis.jarthur@...
Fine art printmaker

> Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> > Thanks Harvey. I only want to add that in the San Francisco area I
> > have seen a pretty good acceptance of Cibachromes in galleries.
> > Especially the work of Christopher Burkett who is truely brillant.
> > His large prints have been selling well. Oddly enough he has adopted
> > a very strong anti-digital stance and is staying with Cibachrome.
> >
> > http://www.christopherburkett.com/
> >
> > Click on the "No Digital" in the red circle with the red slach
> > through it if you want to have your blood boiled. Otherwise pass.
> >
>
> OK....we are in agreement.  Christopher Burkett is an idiot.  ;- )
>
> It reminds me of the old joke:
> Guy in hotel offers a sweet young thing a million dollars to 'sleep' him.
> She replies affirmatively.
> then guy changes hi mind as says, how about $20?
> She replies, "What kind of a girl do you think I am?"
> He replies, " We already *know* what kind of a girl you are....We are just
negotiating price now"  ;- )
>
> If it's ok to do prints from an 'original', do contrast masks and
whatever, it seems odd that it's not ok to
> do the same via digital reproduction...we already know what kind of a guy
he is,........... ;- )
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>
> [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 a message dated 10/8/2001 12:23:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, skid@... 
writes:

<< I remember once, when I had just done a limited edition portfolio of (B&W 
silver prints) of flowers.  It was
 part of a collaboration with a garden designer (we were doing a book 
together...It was never published).
 Anyway, I went to one of his gardens, that he had designed for one of his 
'rich ladies', to photograph a
 particular plant.  This woman, whose garden it was, said that she was 
completely overwhelmed by the beauty of
 the flower prints in the portfolio, and wondered why her photos didn't look 
like mine...After all, she used
 the same camera and film that I did.  Well...after a while, we went out to 
the garden (which was
 breathtaking), and I start to shoot.  All of a sudden, she got this 
wonderful smile on her face, and she said:
 "I've figured it out!  You use a *tripod*...That's it!" (A true story) >>
That's unbelievable it reminds me of another story I heard;
A woman is at a dinner party and the host, upon hearing that her guest was a 
photographer, asked if she had any pictures with her. The photographer did, 
so she showed them to her host, who upon seeing them exclaimed how beautiful 
they were, and that she must have a really great camera. The photographer 
just smiled and said nothing. At the end of the evening, as the guests were 
preparing to leave, the photographer thanked the host, mentioned that the 
dinner was simply marvelous, and that the host must have a really great set 
of pots and pans.
George J Kunze

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> I never met you, Tyler, but I swear I could almost hear you saying 
> that last line above; (but the scene is like one from BarFly -- you 
> as Mickey Rourke, sitting on a barstool, with that long cigarette 
> ash, the ice klinking around in your glass of cheap scotch, 
> smelling like yesterday's clothes, and mumbling this weird 
> mantra over and over, "Wegman, Meyerwitz, Sturges, Fink, Mann 
> oh Mann, whatta they got that I ain't got...?")

Me as Mickey Roarke... I'm so touched, I need a little time out...
Of all people, Mickey Roarke...
wait, I'm tearing up again...
Well, actually, his little bit in Buffalo 66 wasn't too bad.

I like your business model Mark. Seems very suited to your kind of 
work. Mine seems to require that I carry the traditional studio 
photography overhead, which I'm not too enamered with anymore.
Yeah, like people like us have "business models"...
I was just pondering the contradiction in this culture between success 
and freedom, and wondered if some artists I admire are less free than 
they may appear. I certainly think it's true in music, but that's pop 
culture.
Tyler

toomagenta@... wrote:

> Big snip>
> "I've figured it out!  You use a *tripod*...That's it!" (A true story) >>
> That's unbelievable it reminds me of another story I heard;
> A woman is at a dinner party and the host, upon hearing that her guest was a
> photographer, asked if she had any pictures with her. The photographer did,
> so she showed them to her host, who upon seeing them exclaimed how beautiful
> they were, and that she must have a really great camera. The photographer
> just smiled and said nothing. At the end of the evening, as the guests were
> preparing to leave, the photographer thanked the host, mentioned that the
> dinner was simply marvelous, and that the host must have a really great set
> of pots and pans.
> George J Kunze

Cute...and no doubt true.  :- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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