Digital BW, The Print

My visit here has been short so far.  There is a lot of discussion 
about what's neutral, etc.

THE (caps on purpose) reason to achieve neutral grays from my point 
of view is to know how to do it.  From there you have confidence in a 
baseline and can push a print in a direction of color (if so desired).

When people speak of looking at a silver print that's neutral I 
wonder what they could be looking at?  In our family a 'neutral' 
silver print has to come from a chlorobromide based paper because it 
has the potential of warm and cool.  Bromide papers are always 
referred to as cool, period.

I've seen a Joseph Sudek print that was green, completely and 
appropriately, but could still be referred to as a B&W print since it 
was monochromatic.  Sheeler's earlier prints were warm 
(platinum/palladium) but are still B&W in my book and a specific 
media within it.  I once saw a Sheeler in a show, there was a bench 
near by and I was glad for it.  The picture literally sat me down and 
we studied it for a long while.

Cleavis

Cleavis,

Excellent points. Most particularly what is neutral. I think the 
discussion is centered around two issues. One, the quad ink sets have 
tended to be warmer than most silver gelatin prints. Closer to 
platinum. Two, getting a good neutral using a CMYK ink set is often 
difficult without getting a split toning effect. And of course this 
entire issue is an inkjet issue and may not apply to other forms of 
digital output.

So the "neutral" many, but by no means all, are shooting for is a 
hazy target that includes the popular silver papers such as Ilford, 
Oriental Seagul, Agfa and Kodak with mild to moderate selenium 
toning. Looking at my own silver prints which cover a number of 
papers and variations in toning this covers a range of tones but they 
are all rather subtle.

One of the issues with the quads is that you are more limited in tone 
with a given ink. You can only change tone by changing papers. The 
MIS VM is an attempt to address that in a single ink set and offers a 
great deal of tonal latitude along a yellow-blue transition.

Some selenium toned prints seem to range from brown to magenta or 
blue to magenta or brown to yellow within a single print.

I also believe that there is a variation in individual sensitivity to 
print tone or color. I am very particular about this but others may 
be less so or their taste may favor a different tone than my own 
preferences.

I do not see trying to match the exact tone of a particular silver 
print as a worthwhile task. The inkjet prints have qualities of their 
own. All we need is enough variety to have something that appeals to 
all tastes. Since there is a great deal of variation in the 
preference in silver fiber paper, it would seem very unlikely that we 
would all want exactly the same tone in our inkjet prints.

In terms of the group topic B&W means monochrome prints. People 
searching for a sepia, cyanotype or other strong tone in their inkjet 
prints are well served by the archival color ink sets available. 

Martin Wesley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., lyonscox@m... wrote:
> My visit here has been short so far.  There is a lot of discussion 
> about what's neutral, etc.
> 
> THE (caps on purpose) reason to achieve neutral grays from my point 
> of view is to know how to do it.  From there you have confidence in 
a 
> baseline and can push a print in a direction of color (if so 
desired).
> 
> When people speak of looking at a silver print that's neutral I 
> wonder what they could be looking at?  In our family a 'neutral' 
> silver print has to come from a chlorobromide based paper because 
it 
> has the potential of warm and cool.  Bromide papers are always 
> referred to as cool, period.
> 
> I've seen a Joseph Sudek print that was green, completely and 
> appropriately, but could still be referred to as a B&W print since 
it 
> was monochromatic.  Sheeler's earlier prints were warm 
> (platinum/palladium) but are still B&W in my book and a specific 
> media within it.  I once saw a Sheeler in a show, there was a bench 
> near by and I was glad for it.  The picture literally sat me down 
and 

> we studied it for a long while.
> 
> Cleavis

> When people speak of looking at a silver print that's neutral I
> wonder what they could be looking at?  In our family a 'neutral'
> silver print has to come from a chlorobromide based paper because it
> has the potential of warm and cool.  Bromide papers are always
> referred to as cool, period.

Exactly. Some of us just care more deeply about this mono hue thing than
others. I'm the kind of guy who has to go to three paint stores collecting a
couple of dozen "white" paint chips to choose from, whereas my wife says
just get white paint. However if you are the fussy type the subtle
distinctions are certainly worth fighting for. Some people can't drink
inexpensive wines, while I rarely pay more than $10 a bottle. Some people
own $20,000 home audio systems, and I don't. But the thought of using
whatever color ink they give you is just anathema to me. The point isn't to
get "neutral" color, it's to hopefully get the color you need--or at the
least, to not get the color you can't deal with.

Todd

lyonscox@... wrote:

> My visit here has been short so far.  There is a lot of discussion
> about what's neutral, etc.
>
> THE (caps on purpose) reason to achieve neutral grays from my point
> of view is to know how to do it.  From there you have confidence in a
> baseline and can push a print in a direction of color (if so desired).
>
> When people speak of looking at a silver print that's neutral I
> wonder what they could be looking at?  In our family a 'neutral'
> silver print has to come from a chlorobromide based paper because it
> has the potential of warm and cool.  Bromide papers are always
> referred to as cool, period.
>
> I've seen a Joseph Sudek print that was green, completely and
> appropriately, but could still be referred to as a B&W print since it
> was monochromatic.  Sheeler's earlier prints were warm
> (platinum/palladium) but are still B&W in my book and a specific
> media within it.  I once saw a Sheeler in a show, there was a bench
> near by and I was glad for it.  The picture literally sat me down and
> we studied it for a long while.
>
> Cleavis

Cleavis,
I think your perception is absolutely correct.  For some, the be all, and end all, is a drop dead neutral
print.  For others it is just a starting point.  For those of us who view 'neutrality' as an end point are the
same ones who think that *all* images must contain a drop dead black and a pristine pure white.  They don't
see it as a starting point.

When we were students (or when we had students) in basic photography we were taught to make a 'perfect' print,
with not only a drop dead black and white, but also with luminosity, and conversely, in the digital output
world, we must learn to how make a completely neutral print.  I think at that point, creative expressive
sensibilities should take over and the world should be our oyster.

On the other hand, there should also be room in the big tent for those who want to just produce those classic
drop dead neutral prints that contain the absolute black and white in them.  I think that's limiting, but it
*is* what makes life interesting, isn't it?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography




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

Cleavis,

Thank you for this post, I have seen some "green" silver prints and thought
perhaps my vision has become so sensitive about green neutral prints, due to
the metamerism my 2000P suffers, that I was not seeing them correctly.  I
really enjoy your information.  I think it all comes down to personal taste
and subject matter... as you said, the green print by Mr Sudek was
"appropriate" in it's tone.  Perhaps we all go to a little crazy trying to
find neutral (or *our* neutral).

Carolyn

> I've seen a Joseph Sudek print that was green, completely and
> appropriately, but could still be referred to as a B&W print since it
> was monochromatic.  Sheeler's earlier prints were warm
> (platinum/palladium) but are still B&W in my book and a specific
> media within it.  I once saw a Sheeler in a show, there was a bench
> near by and I was glad for it.  The picture literally sat me down and
> we studied it for a long while.

me too, and then I made them mix my own white... my husband stays home.
 
"to not get the color you can't deal with"... YES!  Like that "living in a
container of vanilla ice cream feeling when you use the wrong white!" :-)

Carolyn

> 
> Exactly. Some of us just care more deeply about this mono hue thing than
> others. I'm the kind of guy who has to go to three paint stores collecting a
> couple of dozen "white" paint chips to choose from, whereas my wife says
> just get white paint. However if you are the fussy type the subtle
> distinctions are certainly worth fighting for. Some people can't drink
> inexpensive wines, while I rarely pay more than $10 a bottle. Some people
> own $20,000 home audio systems, and I don't. But the thought of using
> whatever color ink they give you is just anathema to me. The point isn't to
> get "neutral" color, it's to hopefully get the color you need--or at the
> least, to not get the color you can't deal with.
> 
> Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
snip...
> I do not see trying to match the exact tone of a particular silver 
> print as a worthwhile task.

Bingo!

I also think the print hue's appeal has a lot to do with the surface, and density range of the materials. A print color that 
looks amazing for a Chiarenza silver print may be unappealling on a inkjet or alternative process print on an uncoated 
watercolor paper.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> snip...
> > I do not see trying to match the exact tone of a particular 
silver 
> > print as a worthwhile task.
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> I also think the print hue's appeal has a lot to do with the 
surface, and density range of the materials. A print color that 
> looks amazing for a Chiarenza silver print may be unappealling on a 
inkjet or alternative process print on an uncoated 
> watercolor paper.

Tyler,

My mind hadn't gotten to that last step but I agree completely. Which 
all comes back to approaching inkjet printing as a new medium and 
working within its strengths and weakness without constant 
comparisons to other mediums.

Martin