Digital BW, The Print

Martin,

Before I add my one comment, I want to thank you for a very well thought out, and well presented post...It put
everything into perspective, and I essentially agree with everything you have said (not that it matters).

> <snip> 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.

My only comment about the above is that before the newer Fuji color products there was no easy way for
photographers to make their own color (landscape, or otherwise) prints which were stable (I know there was
Cibachromes first, but they too started with a lot of color and contrast problems).  The old 'R' and 'C' type
papers were infamously unstable.  The only stable form of color print *was* dye transfer, and that methodology
was beyond the reach of almost all photographers.  And *that* was one of the reasons that color was not an
acceptable art form...The technology was not there yet.  Brett Weston's (by way of example) beautiful color
dye transfer prints were also accepted as 'art'...But again, dye transfer prints.

Thank you again for a great post.


Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:

(snip)

> 
> My only comment about the above is that before the newer Fuji color 
products there was no easy way for
> photographers to make their own color (landscape, or otherwise) 
prints which were stable (I know there was
> Cibachromes first, but they too started with a lot of color and 
contrast problems).  The old 'R' and 'C' type
> papers were infamously unstable.  The only stable form of color 
print *was* dye transfer, and that methodology
> was beyond the reach of almost all photographers.  And *that* was 
one of the reasons that color was not an
> acceptable art form...The technology was not there yet.  Brett 
Weston's (by way of example) beautiful color
> dye transfer prints were also accepted as 'art'...But again, dye 
transfer prints.
> 
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.

Martin