Digital BW, The Print

>It might be worth remembering that John gets sponsorship from Kodak,
>has made a lot of his fame and income supporting film products, and
>just might be nudged by this relationship with Kodak to try and keep
>film products in demand.  Not a bad thing, just a business.

. . . and the high-end art printers using ink jet are as pure as the driven
snow???? I am sure what you suggest would have NEVER, NEVER ocurred to
Epson,  Hahnemule, and all the other digi-doers.

    John Sexton is not the only one who feels this way . . . many, many of
the "master" printers, those whose skills most of us couldn't approach in a
thousand years, feel the same way. They are predominately large format users
which certainly has something to do with it, while everyone on this list
probably comes from the "miniature" or 35mm (THAT name should be changed
now) format. While my b/w printing skills are no match for Sexton or an
Adams, I spent about twenty five years perfecting my abilities and I got to
be pretty good. I am no master in inkjet, still on that never-ending
learning curve we all seem to be on, but I have yet to see an ink based
print that has that mysterious "depth" that a silver or platinum print can
get (saw something approaching it in a piezo print) . . . am still wishing
for a 6x12 single shot back so I can save a lot of time and then get fat in
front of my screen twisting curves, etc. trying to get the near perfection I
had before.

    Having said all that, the most important observation made, and I support
100 per cent, is the fact that a gelatin print and an ink print are two
different animals, not radically different like a dog and a cat, more like
two dogs . . . a labrador and a shepard . . . close, but no match . . .
never will be.

Paul Aparycki

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki" 
<tawow@s...> wrote:
> 
>     Having said all that, the most important observation made, and 
I support
> 100 per cent, is the fact that a gelatin print and an ink print 
are two
> different animals, not radically different like a dog and a cat, 
more like
> two dogs . . . a labrador and a shepard . . . close, but no 
match . . .
> never will be.
> 
> Paul Aparycki

Never say never-in fact, I'll bet you $100.00 that within five years 
the difference in the best of both will be indistinguishable, and 
that John Sexton will change his mind.

Steve Karafyllakis

Silver is at the end of its line and the new sequence of digital
capture and inkjet is just at the beginning of its development. I also
think a huge percentage, though certainly not all, of the complaints
about inkjet monochrome are from substandard scans. And with more use
of average quality digital 35mm slrs that is only going to increase.

Now you can have an interesting merger of silver with Photoshop by
having very high quality large format negs output directly from
digital files and then contact printing them. Does anyone know of a
really good photographer who is doing this regularly? It certainly
isn't cheap but once you have that well made negative it could be a
lot easier for localized tonal control than working with your hands
within a one minute or less enlarger exposure and you only have to
have the negative made once. Subsequent prints could be a breeze.

I am going to be looking into these high-end enlarged negs this fall
for use with platinum. I think it is an under rated area of inquiry.
The digital+platinum or digital+silver methodology has a rich
potential worth pursuing.There is just not enough time in this world
to do it all.I'm surprise we don't have someone on this list who is
only doing that.

John 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki" 
> <tawow@s...> wrote:
> > 
> >     Having said all that, the most important observation made, and 
> I support
> > 100 per cent, is the fact that a gelatin print and an ink print 
> are two
> > different animals, not radically different like a dog and a cat, 
> more like
> > two dogs . . . a labrador and a shepard . . . close, but no 
> match . . .
> > never will be.
> > 
> > Paul Aparycki
> 
> Never say never-in fact, I'll bet you $100.00 that within five years 
> the difference in the best of both will be indistinguishable, and 
> that John Sexton will change his mind.
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis

Yes, but read this:
http://brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm

On Aug 20, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Peter De Smidt wrote:

> john dean wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Now you can have an interesting merger of silver with Photoshop by
>> having very high quality large format negs output directly from
>> digital files and then contact printing them. Does anyone know of a
>> really good photographer who is doing this regularly?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Dan Burkholder and Brooks Jensen  to name two.  I have 11 prints that
> were made this way, and they are very, very good.



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

I own a lab and I do both silver printing and inkjet printing. Both types of 
prints have there place. I agree with Sexton that a Silver print that is 
selenium toned has a depth and quality that is wonderful and inkjet prints have a 
way to go to match them. One great advantage with inkjet prints is a wonderful 
range of papers available. I love printing on 100% rag paper. I also have 
achieved some really beautiful inkjet prints. I have clients that use both inkjet 
and silver prints. Most of my clients will choose a silver print over an 
inkjet print for exhibitions. I get a great deal of satisfaction when I achieve a 
really fine inkjet print but I still prefer a silver print for my personal 
work. B&W inkjet printing is not that easy tho. As a last thought, I like both 
types of prints for different reasons. As a fine art photographer I will choose a 
silver print for my personal work. Times are changing and anything that can 
be used in photography is good. Steve Cohen


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

Carl,

Thanks for posting that Lens Work essay.Very interestng. That was nice
to have and I think I'll print it out and give it to any skeptical
customers.Of course we will be hearing more and more talk like that.

The one thing that remains interesting is that right now the most
talked about reference to high quality pigment inkjet monochrome
output usually couples it with a rag paper like Photo Rag etc, and
like referenced, puts it closer to the photogravue and platinum realm
than Ilford Gallerie,etc, for instance. So, I think right now the
comparison between inkjet and silver monochrome ouptut is greatly
influenced by the lack of a good hard glossy substrate to work with.
Kodak has that new glossy paper out there which pretty much removes
the optical flaws of inkjet gloss, but no one seems to know much about
its permanece and I haven't tried monochrome with it yet, but will.

John 



All of these techniques are equally valid to me and can be equally
beautuful. But not are equally safe or convinient to work with.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:

> Just some thoughts:
> 
> First, if you are happy with what you're producing, don't worry what 
> other people think, even if they're famous.
> 
> Second, just because someone has a stake in a certain position, it 
> doesn't follow that what they think or say is wrong.  To think so would 
> be to commit the fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial.
> 
> Third, platinum printing didn't die when most photograhers switched to 
> silver gelatin papers.
> 
> Happy printing,
> Peter

----- Original Message ----- 

From: <sandersm@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:46 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print


I realize these are irrational, emotional, aesthetic reasons.

They must be otherwise you would hardly be a member of a group called 
"Digital Black&White The Print" would you now.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

This thread can get bad quick.
One thought- In my experience there is no particular inkjet look. One
wonders exacly what kind of inkjet prints John has seen.
I don't think of one as superior to the other, they do different
things as has been said time and time again. 
But I could put a bad silver print down next to a great inkjet print
and reverse his statement. It will not have "the sensuous and tactile
qualities" of the inkjet. In fact, those very qualities are given to
the best inkjets more than the best silver. I've heard other terms
used to characterize the best silver over inkjet.
Back when I met John, he said without qualification that he did not
like platinum prints. Clearly the qualities unique to silver are
considered superior to other processes by him and others I have met. I
can understand that, I just consider it a closed viewpoint, I prefer
to open my eyes without preconception. It may lead back to John's
conclusion, or something unexpected.
Tyler

The optics look good.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print


>X always trusts his CanNikkoltaflex 3 and superduperchrome II, . . .
>you should too".

Hey, I had one of those.  Great camera.  Here's a picture of it...

  http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links






---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

In einer eMail vom 20.08.2005 20:16:04 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
cj@...:

http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg



ourgh - I need to vomit - what an ugly camera


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

Do you know Oriental's FB inkjet paper. It is very  good.


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

On Aug 20, 2005, at 3:35 PM, AWStolzing@... wrote:

> Do you know Oriental's FB inkjet paper. It is very  good.

Just checked the site and am a bit disappointed. I loved the look of  
air dried Seagull paper which had a wonderful luster to it but the  
fiber papers are glossy only :-( If they come up with a luster finish  
on fiber then we are getting there. I also didn't see any mention of  
a longevity estimate either.

Jim

john dean wrote:

>
>Now you can have an interesting merger of silver with Photoshop by
>having very high quality large format negs output directly from
>digital files and then contact printing them. Does anyone know of a
>really good photographer who is doing this regularly? 
>
>
>  
>
Dan Burkholder and Brooks Jensen  to name two.  I have 11 prints that 
were made this way, and they are very, very good.

Just some thoughts:

First, if you are happy with what you're producing, don't worry what 
other people think, even if they're famous.

Second, just because someone has a stake in a certain position, it 
doesn't follow that what they think or say is wrong.  To think so would 
be to commit the fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial.

Third, platinum printing didn't die when most photograhers switched to 
silver gelatin papers.

Happy printing,
Peter

Carl Schofield wrote:

>Yes, but read this:
>http://brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm
>  
>
Yep.  I know. That doesn't take away from the fact that Lensworks 
Special Edition prints, the ones  made by contact printing a negative 
made on an imagesetter on Ilford FB paper, are very nice prints.

>John it at the top of a technology that will soon be valued
for >it's scarcity not unique quality.

I think there's a lot to be said about it being valued for
it's unique qualities also. Much in the same way Platinum,
Carbon, Cyanotypes and others are valued for their unique look.

>Photography is undergoing a change as 
>important as the move from glass plates to film.

Exactly. As the capture medium is changing so is the printing
and presentation. The look of a contact printed plate is 
different from an enlarged negative. Digital printing simply
provides a "new" way of printing an image. It's not the same
nor do I think it's intended to be. We can make digital prints
that "look like" all of the older processes but they are not
the same and frankly I don't think they should be. Viva la
difference.



 
Regards, Walt

http://www.kauaiphotos.biz

>They are predominately large format >users
>which certainly has something to do with >it, while everyone on this list
>probably comes from the "miniature" or >35mm

I'm a large format user (4x5 and 8x10). I've seen several other people here
mention using large format cameras and others mention medium format as well
so not everyone here comes from 35mm.

I know John Sexton reasonably well from attending most of his workshops and
from spending a short amount of time photographing with him.  I think he's a
great instructor and a great photographer/printer. I also think he's a very 
honest guy and with a lot of personal integrity. I'm confident he wouldn't
make a statement such as the one quoted here unless he truly believed it and 
he certainly wouldn't shill for film (and indirectly for Kodak) just because 
of whatever financial arrangements he may have with them.

On the other hand, he's also human. His views of digital printing can't help
but be influenced by the fact that it's driving his materials out of 
existence (including his primary paper, Kodak
Polymax Fine Art).  I think he's also indirectly influenced by the fact that 
digital printing does allow some printers to come closer to his level of 
print quality than they likely could have in the
darkroom. And of course digital must be having a fairly big effect on his 
darkroom workshops.

So while I like and admire John and am sure he believes what he says without 
being directly influenced in any way by financial ties, if any, to Kodak I
wouldn't let his opinions about digital printing have the slightest effect
on my own.  In truth I don't even know what he means by referring to silver 
prints as "sensuous" and "tactile." Without having given it much thought, I 
would have said that with all the different kinds of papers on which prints 
can be made digitally they actually have a greater tactile quality than 
silver prints.

I don't share the opinion often expressed that monochrome ink jet prints and 
silver prints are two entirely different animals. I've exhbited both side by 
side and when they're under glass it's pretty much impossible for anyone 
except perhaps another digital printer to tell which is which.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Aparycki" <tawow@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print




>It might be worth remembering that John gets sponsorship from Kodak,
>has made a lot of his fame and income supporting film products, and
>just might be nudged by this relationship with Kodak to try and keep
>film products in demand.  Not a bad thing, just a business.

. . . and the high-end art printers using ink jet are as pure as the driven
snow???? I am sure what you suggest would have NEVER, NEVER ocurred to
Epson,  Hahnemule, and all the other digi-doers.

    John Sexton is not the only one who feels this way . . . many, many of
the "master" printers, those whose skills most of us couldn't approach in a
thousand years, feel the same way. They are predominately large format users
which certainly has something to do with it, while everyone on this list
probably comes from the "miniature" or 35mm (THAT name should be changed
now) format. While my b/w printing skills are no match for Sexton or an
Adams, I spent about twenty five years perfecting my abilities and I got to
be pretty good. I am no master in inkjet, still on that never-ending
learning curve we all seem to be on, but I have yet to see an ink based
print that has that mysterious "depth" that a silver or platinum print can
get (saw something approaching it in a piezo print) . . . am still wishing
for a 6x12 single shot back so I can save a lot of time and then get fat in
front of my screen twisting curves, etc. trying to get the near perfection I
had before.


Paul Aparycki





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yea, I'm a large format person too and have been for a long, long
time. That has nothing to do with it.
-------------

 In truth I don't even know what he means by referring to silver
prints as "sensuous" and "tactile." Without having given it much
thought, I
would have said that with all the different kinds of papers on which
prints
can be made digitally they actually have a greater tactile quality than
silver prints.

Brian

-------------

Now that is a really perceptive statement. It is exactly the opposite
phenomena and that is what makes that statement so funny. Back around
the turn of the century when photographers began flexing their
abilities big time and started to provide an alternative to
traditional arts like painting litho and intallio in the art world,
the big complaint against photo was its emotional "coldness" and
"mechanical" false and generic aesthetic. Sound familiar? It was
perceived to not only be a machine made thing,rather than human made
art, but its very surface was hard, industrial, assemblyline and
LACKING in sensuality. Not only that, many thought photo was
corrupting the entire morality of the culture at large. Definitely not
sensuous. That kind of talk was still going on in the 80's when I was
in grad school.

{ Read Baudelliere - Could you find an honest observer to declare that
the invasion of photography and the great industrial mad­ness of our
times have no part at all in this deplorable result? Are we to suppose
that a people whose eyes are growing used to considering the results
of a material sci­ence as though they were the products of the
beautiful, will not in the course of time have singularly diminished
its faculties of judging and of feeling what are among the most
ethereal and immaterial aspects of creation?} - ( duh, painting?)

Like Tyler said, we have SO many possibilites that there isn't time
enough to work on them all, much less worry about recreating the
past..... My 9600 is so slow finally I can trim this group and get
back to work. Faster printers, now that's what Im talkin bout..

> 
> I don't share the opinion often expressed that monochrome ink 
> jet prints and silver prints are two entirely different 
> animals. I've exhbited both side by side and when they're 
> under glass it's pretty much impossible for anyone except 
> perhaps another digital printer to tell which is which.

Another photographer will probably never see your image anyway, especially
the ones that carry a loupe around. One of the finest platinum printers I
have known lived near Ansel Adams.  He was convinced the Ansel never saw any
of his images because of his Ansel's bias against platinum.  And they are
superb images.

> The digital+platinum or digital+silver methodology has a rich 
> potential worth pursuing.There is just not enough time in 
> this world to do it all.I'm surprise we don't have someone on 
> this list who is only doing that.
> 
> John 

John, 

I have made a fair number of enlarged negs for pt/pd printing.  While
certainly the in-camera LF neg will be "best", the lure of using a smaller
camera and digital post-processing is strong.  I have made enlarged negs
using an imagesetter, inkjet and darkroom.  The problem with an imagesetter
is that it is old technology (I was at a press check yesterday for a
publication using some of my pix, and the owner and I got to talking about
this subject.  He said he would make me an offer I can't refuse on of their
imagesetters...no thanks).  In addition, you will probably find that the
common 2400 ppi imagesetter is not sufficient.  It requires (a) a 4800 ppi
imagesetter and (b) an operator who can understand what you want, both rare
items.  If you want to try that, as I recall the Camera & Darkroom store in
Santa Fe has a connection with a pre-press there that has a high-res
imagesetter and understands the requirements for an enlarged neg.

I remain to be convinced that an inkjet negative will do the job, though I
have certainly tried.  I must tell you that the finest pt/pd prints I have
seen in person, i.e. held in my lusting little hands as opposed to viewing
through glass) are made from small camera (35mm and 6x7cm) negs enlarged in
the darkroom to 20x24.  These are from Tom Millea (www.tommillea.com) and
David Kennedy (http://www.davidmichaelkennedy.com/indexold.html).  Also to
be considered is that the papers for pt/pd are textured and hide a lot of
flaws, unlike silver paper.  Anyway, FWIW that's my experience.  Now I'm
going to have to order some of the Lenswork prints to see how things have
progressed (out of intellectual curiousity - I don't want to go back in the
darkroom and anyway, my wife is converting it into a room with lots of
overhead UV lights for seedlings or whatever before they go the garden).

  --Ken

Ken,

I belive there are several good image setter technicians out there in
NY, La, Chicago, and Salt Lake City. But like you say, they are a
dying breed and some of those references I got 6 months ago may have
moved on in their life, as many of great color dig neg makers have
done. Ours here in Atlanta simply "retired" and there was one one
interested in taking his place. As to darkrooms, mine is gone too. No
room.

But I do have a fantastic 8 tube 7' uv light that is as bright as
daylight that I want to use. I don't really have a problem with
Burkholders method of inkjet negs on trans film for platinum ( I don't
think). Like you say the paper absorption takes care of a lot of the
problems and if you get a good sized paper I think they can look
nice.I belive the problem is finding the OHP film in sizes larger than
13x19 that doesn't have pin holes. At least that is what Pictorico
told me when I discussed it with them. The roll film was flawed and
coated differently. I would like to do a few 20x30 platinum/pallads.
We'll see if it is possible without breaking the bank. I've only done
a few 13x19's so far. But you know no matter how nice and "rare" these
types of prints are, whenever I finish a session I always say, thank
God for pigment inkjet. I certainly wouldn't want to go through all
that every week. But its fun to have variety and it puts things in
perspective.

Thanks for the info,

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
<kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> > The digital+platinum or digital+silver methodology has a rich 
> > potential worth pursuing.There is just not enough time in 
> > this world to do it all.I'm surprise we don't have someone on 
> > this list who is only doing that.
> > 
> > John 
> 
> John, 
> 
> I have made a fair number of enlarged negs for pt/pd printing.  While
> certainly the in-camera LF neg will be "best", the lure of using a
smaller
> camera and digital post-processing is strong.  I have made enlarged negs
> using an imagesetter, inkjet and darkroom.  The problem with an
imagesetter
> is that it is old technology (I was at a press check yesterday for a
> publication using some of my pix, and the owner and I got to talking
about
> this subject.  He said he would make me an offer I can't refuse on
of their
> imagesetters...no thanks).  In addition, you will probably find that the
> common 2400 ppi imagesetter is not sufficient.  It requires (a) a
4800 ppi
> imagesetter and (b) an operator who can understand what you want,
both rare
> items.  If you want to try that, as I recall the Camera & Darkroom
store in
> Santa Fe has a connection with a pre-press there that has a high-res
> imagesetter and understands the requirements for an enlarged neg.
> 
> I remain to be convinced that an inkjet negative will do the job,
though I
> have certainly tried.  I must tell you that the finest pt/pd prints
I have
> seen in person, i.e. held in my lusting little hands as opposed to
viewing
> through glass) are made from small camera (35mm and 6x7cm) negs
enlarged in
> the darkroom to 20x24.  These are from Tom Millea
(www.tommillea.com) and
> David Kennedy (http://www.davidmichaelkennedy.com/indexold.html). 
Also to
> be considered is that the papers for pt/pd are textured and hide a
lot of
> flaws, unlike silver paper.  Anyway, FWIW that's my experience.  Now I'm
> going to have to order some of the Lenswork prints to see how things
have
> progressed (out of intellectual curiousity - I don't want to go back
in the

> darkroom and anyway, my wife is converting it into a room with lots of
> overhead UV lights for seedlings or whatever before they go the garden).
> 
>   --Ken

Eric and Clayton;

I know it is off topic, but I was the one who started out with the
all-in-one-flex comment. I love both of your contraptions . . . oops, excuse
me, your ultra most recent bestest mostest professionalest cameras, SO, have
you ever seen the picture of that fellow (I believe he was originally a
Californian) with his "camera van"?
The entire thing is covered with cameras glued? screwed? all over it (some
of them actually working, being fired from inside . . . a whole new meaning
to "drive by shooting") . . . and an obviously good way to get rid of your
"film" cameras whilst waiting for photoshop to do some really akward
manipulation ;-)

Further Eric, if you are looking for something really cute (and really
outrageously expensive I would imagine), Rollei has produced in limited
numbers a miniature TLR that has a half-size sensor in it (a la the majority
of "35" cameras).

all the best

Paul Aparycki

>I had one of those for awhile, but I much preferred the medium format
>RolLeicaFlex.  It produced such sensuous and tactile negatives and/or
>transparencies, especially when you used the ultrasuperduperchrome
>III film produced by Koduji.  You can see one here,

>http://www.ericashworth.net/images/rolleicaflex.jpg

>Eric

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
<kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> ...I must tell you that the finest pt/pd prints I have
> seen in person, i.e. held in my lusting little hands as opposed to
viewing
> through glass) are made from small camera (35mm and 6x7cm) negs
enlarged in
> the darkroom to 20x24.  These are from Tom Millea
(www.tommillea.com) and
> David Kennedy (http://www.davidmichaelkennedy.com/indexold.html).

Ken, I don't know what Tom has been up to for a long time, but the
prints I saw long ago were enlarged negs from 35mm polapan. This put
him considerably ahead of the rest by elimnating the interpositive. 
Less loss and tonal scale distortion. That film also has (had?) a
beautiful grain structure.
Haven't seen Kennedy's prints, but he certainly has impressive people
singing his praises.

Still though, the platinum prints I liked best were straight contact
prints from the original big neg. Of course I've also seen very
unimpressive examples.

I keep hearing about Epson made negs, but have yet to see a print.
Tyler

Well, now I'm motivated again.  My best friend has a really large UV pt/pd
rig (he only prints pt from LF negs), so maybe I'll give it a try again.
Thank God you don't need a real darkroom for pt/pd  --lobster lights are OK
and give a kind of warm atmosphere.  One thing, when you look at the
material cost of a large platinum print (or two or three until you get it
right), PR seems like a wild bargain.  This is an exciting time in which we
live, photographically, yes?  So many options.  (Speaking of pin holes, one
valuable lesson I learned is to take the paper and look at it against a
strong backlight to see if any black specks show in a light area -- if so it
goes in the trash). 

  --Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of john dean
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:58 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print
> 
>  Ken,
> 
> I belive there are several good image setter technicians out 
> there in NY, La, Chicago, and Salt Lake City. But like you 
> say, they are a dying breed and some of those references I 
> got 6 months ago may have moved on in their life, as many of 
> great color dig neg makers have done. Ours here in Atlanta 
> simply "retired" and there was one one interested in taking 
> his place. As to darkrooms, mine is gone too. No room.
> 
> But I do have a fantastic 8 tube 7' uv light that is as 
> bright as daylight that I want to use. I don't really have a 
> problem with Burkholders method of inkjet negs on trans film 
> for platinum ( I don't think). Like you say the paper 
> absorption takes care of a lot of the problems and if you get 
> a good sized paper I think they can look nice.I belive the 
> problem is finding the OHP film in sizes larger than
> 13x19 that doesn't have pin holes. At least that is what 
> Pictorico told me when I discussed it with them. The roll 
> film was flawed and coated differently. I would like to do a 
> few 20x30 platinum/pallads.
> We'll see if it is possible without breaking the bank. I've 
> only done a few 13x19's so far. But you know no matter how 
> nice and "rare" these types of prints are, whenever I finish 
> a session I always say, thank God for pigment inkjet. I 
> certainly wouldn't want to go through all that every week. 
> But its fun to have variety and it puts things in perspective.
> 
> Thanks for the info,
> 
> John

>I know it is off topic, but I was the one who started out with the
>all-in-one-flex comment. I love both of your contraptions...
>...have you ever seen the picture of that fellow (I believe he was 
>originally a Californian) with his "camera van"? The entire thing 
>is covered with cameras glued? screwed? all over it (some of them 
>actually working, being fired from inside . . . a whole new meaning
>to "drive by shooting")

No, haven't seen it but I'd like to.  Sounds like great fun.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Yes, the earlier ones were Polapan 35mm, now demised.    Here is one of my
poor efforts: http://www.kencarney.com/images/New_Mexico/NM_Storm.html.  I
used that film a lot and was sad to see it go.  I still have the (electric)
processor somewhere, and have two Martha Casanave (
http://www.marthacasanave.com/lenin.htmlprints), the third and this sixth on
my wall.  She used the manual processor with 35mm pinhole in Russia, but the
KGB ruined it because they thought it was some kind of code machine.  The
bastards, as they would say on Southpark.  I believe lately Tom has been
using an Agfa positive b&w film, and maybe lab enlarged negs.

> Ken, I don't know what Tom has been up to for a long time, 
> but the prints I saw long ago were enlarged negs from 35mm 
> polapan. This put him considerably ahead of the rest by 
> elimnating the interpositive. 
> Less loss and tonal scale distortion. That film also has 
> (had?) a beautiful grain structure.


> Haven't seen Kennedy's prints, but he certainly has 
> impressive people singing his praises.

	They are suberb, but $$$, as well they should be.

> Still though, the platinum prints I liked best were straight 
> contact prints from the original big neg. Of course I've also 
> seen very unimpressive examples.
> 
> I keep hearing about Epson made negs, but have yet to see a print.

	Me too.  I'm not sure I'd want to air mine publicly.	I need to
see this solution up on the chalkboard, with some good prints.


  --Ken

>Ken, I don't know what Tom has been up to for a long time, but the
>prints I saw long ago were enlarged negs from 35mm polapan. This put
>him considerably ahead of the rest by elimnating the interpositive.
>Less loss and tonal scale distortion. That film also has (had?) a
>beautiful grain structure.

35mm polaroid instant film hasn't been made for a while (about a year and a
half to two years now) . . . when you can find Polapan that has been stored
in a freezer, people usually want a king's ransom for it if they are willing
to let it go. I used it a lot . . . it was absolutely beautiful, and the
most fragile stuff I have ever touched in my entire life . . . one breath
the wrong way and it would scratch.

Paul Aparycki

I'm not sure about the camera van but I have seen the "minidigi" as  
it's called.  I think it's only being sold by Rollei's Japanese  
distributor.  It goes for a mere $375 (at least that's the price I've  
managed to locate) and gives you a HUGE <g> 2 MP, square format  
image, oooooh. Anyone interested can see it here,

http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html

make sure to check out the promo video about 3/4 of the way down the  
page.  Pretty adorable.  Makes me wanna get one.

Back to the van, talk about a "motor drive" for his cameras.  LOL.

Eric
www.ericashworth.net

On Aug 20, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Paul Aparycki wrote:

> Eric and Clayton;
>
> I know it is off topic, but I was the one who started out with the
> all-in-one-flex comment. I love both of your contraptions . . .  
> oops, excuse
> me, your ultra most recent bestest mostest professionalest cameras,  
> SO, have
> you ever seen the picture of that fellow (I believe he was  
> originally a
> Californian) with his "camera van"?
> The entire thing is covered with cameras glued? screwed? all over  
> it (some
> of them actually working, being fired from inside . . . a whole new  
> meaning
> to "drive by shooting") . . . and an obviously good way to get rid  
> of your
> "film" cameras whilst waiting for photoshop to do some really akward
> manipulation ;-)
>
> Further Eric, if you are looking for something really cute (and really
> outrageously expensive I would imagine), Rollei has produced in  
> limited
> numbers a miniature TLR that has a half-size sensor in it (a la the  
> majority
> of "35" cameras).
>
> all the best
>
> Paul Aparycki

I tried posting this a little while ago, so if it ends up being
posted twice, my apologies.

I'm not sure about the camera van but I have seen the "minidigi" as
it's called.  I think it's 
only being sold by Rollei's Japanese distributor.  It goes for a mere
$375 (at least that's the 
price I've managed to locate) and gives you a HUGE <g> 2 MP, square
format image, 
oooooh. Anyone interested can see it here,

http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html

make sure to check out the promo video about 3/4 of the way down the
page.  Pretty 
adorable.  Makes me wanna get one.

Back to the van, talk about a "motor drive" for his cameras.  LOL.

Eric
www.ericashworth.net



On Aug 20, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Paul Aparycki wrote:

Eric and Clayton;

I know it is off topic, but I was the one who started out with the
all-in-one-flex comment. I love both of your contraptions . . . oops,
excuse
me, your ultra most recent bestest mostest professionalest cameras,
SO, have
you ever seen the picture of that fellow (I believe he was originally
a
Californian) with his "camera van"?
The entire thing is covered with cameras glued? screwed? all over it
(some
of them actually working, being fired from inside . . . a whole new
meaning
to "drive by shooting") . . . and an obviously good way to get rid of
your
"film" cameras whilst waiting for photoshop to do some really akward
manipulation ;-)

Further Eric, if you are looking for something really cute (and really
outrageously expensive I would imagine), Rollei has produced in
limited
numbers a miniature TLR that has a half-size sensor in it (a la the
majority
of "35" cameras).

all the best

Paul Aparycki

Two lenses are always better than one lens.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Ashworth" <brigsby707@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print


I had one of those for awhile, but I much preferred the medium format
RolLeicaFlex.  It produced such sensuous and tactile negatives and/or
transparencies, especially when you used the ultrasuperduperchrome
III film produced by Koduji.  You can see one here,

http://www.ericashworth.net/images/rolleicaflex.jpg

Eric
www.ericashworth.net



On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> >X always trusts his CanNikkoltaflex 3 and superduperchrome II, . . .
> >you should too".
>
> Hey, I had one of those.  Great camera.  Here's a picture of it...
>
>   http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton


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




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links






---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "brigsby707" 
<brigsby707@c...> wrote:
> I tried posting this a little while ago, so if it ends up being
> posted twice, my apologies.
> 
> I'm not sure about the camera van but I have seen the "minidigi" as
> it's called.  I think it's 
> only being sold by Rollei's Japanese distributor.  It goes for a 
mere
> $375 (at least that's the 
> price I've managed to locate) and gives you a HUGE <g> 2 MP, square
> format image, 
> oooooh. Anyone interested can see it here,
> 
> http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html
> 
> make sure to check out the promo video about 3/4 of the way down the
> page.  Pretty 
> adorable.  Makes me wanna get one.
> 
> Back to the van, talk about a "motor drive" for his cameras.  LOL.
> 
> Eric
> www.ericashworth.net
> 
> 
> 


I found this press release date October 2004. This thing should be 
available in the US by now.

http://www.rollei.jp/e/pr/pr102504.pdf

> 
> 
> I found this press release date October 2004. This thing should be 
> available in the US by now.
> 
> http://www.rollei.jp/e/pr/pr102504.pdf

B&H has them at $270.00

Here's a review of one person that thought it was something other 
than a toy:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?
A=details&kw=ROMD&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=364598#goto_itemInfo

> From: dfaprinting
> 
> I found this press release date October 2004. This thing should be 
> available in the US by now.
> 
> http://www.rollei.jp/e/pr/pr102504.pdf

Cute, but I don't think that'll set the world on fire.

-- 

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. 
DeRocco" <pderocco@i...> wrote:
> > From: dfaprinting
> > 
> > I found this press release date October 2004. This thing should 
be 
> > available in the US by now.
> > 
> > http://www.rollei.jp/e/pr/pr102504.pdf
> 
> Cute, but I don't think that'll set the world on fire.
> 


Especialy with a fixed focus lens. If it had a variable focus, it 
might make a nice "toy".

Tom O'Connell wrote;

>I repeat my query: How many recent improvements can one find in the
>wet darkroom world vs. the almost daily refinements in the digital
>world? From where I sit and watch, the digital progress is
>overwhelming and the days film manufacturing are numbered. It would
>be nice to think both would exist side by side, but economic reality
>will eventually bring a halt to the world of film. Probably the only
>thing keeping it alive today is the hope that the millions of film
>cameras (mostly in closets) will get pulled out for pictures of the
>cousin's wedding or christening...but eventually this will stop.

>Such a
>product could end film manufacture overnight if it really worked
>well. I haven't seen one, but doesn't Leica now have a digital back
>for it's rangefinder and SLR cameras?

I think many will feel that I am anti-digital, but it is not the case. I
shoot film and no, it is not going to die anytime soon (I'll get to that
later). I do however scan and then print with inkjet . . . I like it and I
like the gelatin silver print. I used to have a custom built darkroom, and
if I wasn't constantly moving about I would do so again. I am happy with the
new challenge of squirting ink onto paper, but frustrated by the blind mob.

Hmmm?, "digital progress"?? Well the storage of imagery in a digital format
is a step forward (I do remember punch cards though), though there are many
industry voices who indeed are worried about the long term question for cds
and dvds, both just as fragile as film if not handled properly. As for what
we do now a "great leap forward"? That's funny, I was sure that I had seen
images of ink on paper that were produced hundreds of years ago . . .
predating silver imagery by a long time as a matter of fact, so I guess that
makes "traditional" silver photography the "real" new technology. Many on
this list, myself included, revel in the prints we can make with MIS carbon
inks . . . a product that is not too dissimilar from what Ugh used when he f
irst drew the sistine cavern, and as Paul R will be happy to point out . . .
some of that really old stuff is still around! ;-). Honestly, the only thing
that has really changed is how we deliver a variation of the same old, same
old, onto a substrate . . . we have gone from Ugh with his charcoal stick,
to the next big thing, furry ended mastodon sticks dipped in charcoal and
water (painting), up to the aerosol can . . . gee, if it wasn't for the punk
graffiti artist (aerosol . . . SPRAY!!!) we might never have gotten inkjet
printers that are out of date one minute after you get them plugged in.

As for film about to die??? This again is the narrow minded perspective
which I have seen on Stockphoto and other lists . . . "oooh! I bought a
digital camera, Kodak is going to collapse!!! . . . oooh!". Don't get hot
under the collar Tom . . . I am just pointing out something REALLY BIG that
you missed, that is exhibited by so many who march like zombies in "night of
the living dead" arms stretched in front as they parade to their electronics
store, saying in a monotone dirge, "digital . . . digital . . . digital . .
. digital . . . digital", what a really bad film! which brings us to, have
any of you seen that recent release of that abominable film "deuce bigelow .
. . something or other". I wouldn't go to see it, but I understand it is
pretty pathetic . . . there are many, many films released during the summer
that are pretty pathetic. They all have one thing in common though, they are
shot on 35mm film. So what?

Well here is so what. Two hours of 35mm film is 10,800 feet. When you shoot
a film, you have a shoot ratio that being the amount of footage actually
shot against the final footage used. In deference to the pro-digital group,
we will give a 3 to 1 ratio (which for any production is really, really
good), that gives  32,400 feet of film used for getting the final cut, of
which an answer print and then release prints are done. The above mentioned
film which is a dog, opened in at least 50 sites throughout North America. A
super major release like Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Godfather, etc would
probably have opened in twice as many locations. So? Well we have our
original film (3 to 1 remember) plus nominally 50 more release prints giving
us 53 x 10,800 feet, or 572,400 feet for one crappy film. That is the
equivalent of 114,480 rolls of 36exp 35mm film, or if you would like . . .
if you shot ten rolls a day, every day, seven days a week, NO vacation, you
would catch up in 31 YEARS, and that is just for one crappy film . . . there
are many, many releases (100s) during the year, and we haven't even begun to
count Europe and Asia (THE largest film producer and market on the planet),
and this goes on every year.

The movie industry embraced digital technology long before many on this list
even knew it existed. They still shoot more than 95 per cent on film, not
digital (Panavision and Arri do have equipment for digital capture, though
few use it). Most major TV series are shot on film (with the exception of
those braindead reality shows). Theatres across the world are virtually all
film . . . only a few have bought into digital projection equipment (there
are many, many, many, many, many zeros in the price tag), and those few are
in the largest cities on the planet . . . where there are still other
theatres showing the same release on film.

So what? again? Yes, this narrow, narrow, narrow, narrow  market that is
represented by the silver lovers will indeed take a couple of punches to the
jaw, but really folks, you guys going all digital and spelling the end of
"film" . . . please, you probably represent less than a tenth of one
hundreth of a percent of  Kodak's and Fuji's market. The only danger they
have is the possibility of dying from laughter listening to you.

Film is here for a long, long time . . . the varities and selection will
certainly narrow down, but it is here for my lifetime and probably yours.

Paul Aparycki

>Especialy with a fixed focus lens. If it had a variable focus, it
>might make a nice "toy".


Hey!!! Here is an idea! maybe in the next model they could put  . . . a
phone in it!!!!

ain't technology great!

Paul Aparycki

I should tell you something that the Kodak Poly Fine Art fiber paper
is no longer being produced. That was the paper I used and I thought
it was almost perfect. I don't think Agfa Portriga is sill made
either. Ilford fiber, how long? Even Spottone is gone. One thing for
sure, a lot of choices are not going to be available for high-end
silver paper. Eventually everyones prints are going to look the same,
with a little toning here and there. It is quickly becoming what
Platinum work became at the turn of the century - a highly
specialized, expensive, and esoteric activity. A lot of people are
going to love it for that very reason. Georgia State University just
finished building a whole new set of traditional darkrooms. They'll
keep the flame going in some of the universities like they did
woodburytypes at Arizona State when I was in school.

John

The issue is a simple one.

For any technology to be sustainabkle it must offer development potential in 
any or all of the following areas.

It must continue to offer1: lower costs 2: better quality 3: greater variety 
for the end user.

Film and silver based emulsions are old technology with little or no 
development potential in any or all of those areas.

Digital photographic technology is at the begining of it's development stage 
and will surely offer considerable potential in the above.

On that basis conventional darkroom technology will become less and less 
used and as a rsult manufacturers will reduce and continue to reduce their 
production and research  facilities into new and better and cheaper ways of 
producing the raw material of the photographer until eventually only very 
small specialist production units will exist.

Because of the loss of economies of scale the conventional technology will 
become more and more expensive - so much so that market demand will continue 
to be reduced to an ever dwindling level. and eventually it will reach it's 
own sustainable demand potential, but how long that will take - who knows? 
for sure it will be a fraction of the demand for new technology.

Who will wish to invest their business capital in a shrinking manufacturing 
industry whose narket is reducing on a continuous basis.?  Not many if 
eventually any.

Now add to that terrible tale of woe the continuing reduction in interest 
from young would-be professionals in the photographic user market who will 
not wish to spend the time necessary in learning the technique and craft 
involved in these old technology methods.

Will the trade schools still teach them (how many builders still learn to 
make bricks from mud and straw I ask?)

Ask yourself if you were starting out, how would you spend your training 
time? What sort of an organisation would you like to work for. Where will 
your long term future belong? Will it be working for some doddery old sod 
living in the past, using outdated and unrepairable equipment long past it's 
useful life with no likely future developments and raw materials costing 
more every year.

Come now, forget the old codgers and their soon to be redundant skills and 
get on the new technology bandwaggon where long term employment is more 
likely.

There will remain a few, a very few, specialist producers for those willing 
to pay the necessary for "something different" - not better you will note, 
and they may get by on the income front, but the market will not support 
many of them, in complete contrast to the digital worls which, because it is 
a growth potential will support many, many more.

Lets all get real here my merrie men and do remember the Winston S Churchill 
adage that goes - "those who attempt to chain their present to the past will 
ultimately destroy their own future".

I rest my case and head south to the tea pot for some of that old technology 
that will surely never die.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom OConnell" <tomoc@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 6:47 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print



> -----------
> Um, that's simply not true. Not all change is good, and while there
> are definitely events that represent real progress according to
strictly


Scott-

You are right. Technology does go down some dead end roads from time
to time. But the move to digital is much more than an affair with
SciFi and possible new solutions.

I repeat my query: How many recent improvements can one find in the
wet darkroom world vs. the almost daily refinements in the digital
world? From where I sit and watch, the digital progress is
overwhelming and the days film manufacturing are numbered. It would
be nice to think both would exist side by side, but economic reality
will eventually bring a halt to the world of film. Probably the only
thing keeping it alive today is the hope that the millions of film
cameras (mostly in closets) will get pulled out for pictures of the
cousin's wedding or christening...but eventually this will stop. Who
knows exactly what will end it... remember a couple of years ago,
there was a product written about (don't know if it actually was ever
produced) that was a digital "insert" to the film bay of conventional
cameras...kind of like the cassette insert for iPods <g>. Such a
product could end film manufacture overnight if it really worked
well. I haven't seen one, but doesn't Leica now have a digital back
for it's rangefinder and SLR cameras?


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> Carl Schofield wrote:
> 
> >Yes, but read this:
> >http://brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm
> >  
> >
> Yep.  I know. That doesn't take away from the fact that Lensworks 
> Special Edition prints, the ones  made by contact printing a negative 
> made on an imagesetter on Ilford FB paper, are very nice prints.

Mind if I add my two cents?
First, thanks for the compliments. I really do appreciate them.
Second, there is a fundamental difference between our LensWork Special
Editions prints in gelatin silver and my personal work, now
pigment-on-paper. In the former we are challenged with making an exact
replication of the photographer's original print -- the image,
tonalities, and medium. The goal is to make the reproductions
"visually indistinguishable" from the original -- a goal which I
believe we achieved. In the case of my personal artwork, I am free to
use whatever means are at my disposal to create whatever artistic
statement I choose to. I consider myself (gosh this sounds
braggadocios!) an accomplished gelatin silver printer. Nonetheless, I
now choose to work in pigment because it is unquestionably the best
medium for my personal work. Of course, this is entirely a statement
about me and my work and not at all any sort of indictment of gelatin
silver.
Having said that, I must be candidly honest and admit that we have now
officially closed the LensWork darkroom. In fact, we have dismantled
it completely, effectively shutting down the LensWork gelatin silver
Special Editions program. We have done so for a variety of reasons not
the least of which is the increasing difficulty in the availability of
materials. We used a great deal of Forte paper and it is gone. We used
Ilford paper and they are hanging on by a thread. Worse, our ability
to secure large scale digital negatives that are not flawed is almost
impossible as imagesetter machines fall farther and farther behind the
curve in technology and maintenance. We were heartsick to make this
decision, but after a year of debate and vacillation, we have finally
pulled the plug. For us, it is a sad "end of an era" experience.
Over the last couple of years we have been frequently asked if we will
offer LensWork Special Editions in ink. We might. We are not sure.
Right now I am working on about 10 years of backlogged personal
projects. For years I focussed my attention on developing and
perfecting the LensWork hybrid printing technology. (Which I could
have avoided if Burkholder had just written is book about 5 years
earlier!) For the last seven years since the introduction of the SE
program I've spent a great deal of my time making and managing the
production of the over 17,000 gelatin silver prints we've sold. It's
now time for a bit of a rest and regroup.
As a "lurker" ever since Tyler Boley turned me on to this group, I
hope you don't mind my butting in!
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Sunday August 21, 2005 at 3:50PM

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...> 
wrote:
> ...They'll
> keep the flame going in some of the universities like they did
> woodburytypes at Arizona State when I was in school.


wow, cool! I've only ever seen one, beautiful. I understand a pretty heavy duty press was 
required.
Tyler

Paul Roark said:

>Bruce Barnbaum has an article in the >latest (September/October, 2005) 
> >Photo
>Techniques magazine entitled, "The >Future of Traditional Photography." . . 
>. >The article struck me as a thoughtful >piece rather than a dogmatic 
>reaction
>of a silver theologian.

Paul - I read that article too but I had a  different reaction to it than 
you did. The principal problem I had is that it purports to be about 
"traditional" photography (camera and darkroom) vs "digital" but he doesn't 
distinguish between use of a digital camera and printing digitally (whether 
from a digital camera or a scanned negative). Many of his statements, 
arguments etc. relating to "digital" are actually relevant only to digital 
cameras and are irrelevant to printing digitally as such. But he never 
ackowledges that distinction and instead just talks about how much better 
traditional photography (camera and darkroom) is than "digital."

For example, a good part of the second page of the two page article is taken 
up with the advantages of having a negative vis a vis only having the image 
stored on a disc. That's all fine and good but it's relevant only to using 
digital cameras, not to printing digitally from scanned negatives (or 
positives). He also talks about the "contemplative" aspects of traditional 
photography as compared with the "immediacy" of seeing a digital image in 
the camera, something that's obviously relevant only to use of a digital 
camera.

Basically he seems to me to present a mish mash of objections to "digital," 
most of which apply only to using a digital camera, not to printing 
digitally. But he never makes that distinction and instead just lumps 
everything he dislikes under the rubric of "digital."

Then there are the just plain wrong statements, e.g. "the traditional 
darkroom has improved tremendously in recent years." The only example he 
gives is the advent of variable contrast paper, which has been around since 
at least the early 1970s. I can't think of any change in darkroom practice, 
procedure, or equipment in "recent years" that would be considered a 
"tremendous improvement" and if pressed for specifics I doubt that Bruce 
could either.

And then there's the totally unsupported opinions presented as fact, e.g. 
"art is a contemplative and solitary process and traditional methods lend 
themselves better to that approach."

All in all I thought this article was just more of the usual stuff that 
comes from diehard darkroom types who are trying to justify the fact that 
they learned to work one way, they built their reputations that way, and 
they don't want to change that way for whatever reason so they feel 
compelled to justify their way.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print


Bruce Barnbaum has an article in the latest (September/October, 2005) Photo
Techniques magazine entitled, "The Future of Traditional Photography."
While he thinks both media will co-exist quite nicely, he does prefer the
traditional approach.  He likes the solitude and process of the darkroom,
and he dislikes what he sees as "instant decisions" that tend to be made
with digital capture -- seeing the image on the LCD, etc. and deleting
images too quickly.

The article struck me as a thoughtful piece rather than a dogmatic reaction
of a silver theologian.

Frankly, my view is that the skills of making a good B&W print are quite
transferable between the wet darkroom and the computer.  Most of the content
of the articles Barnbaum writes about working up a print could be talking
about digital tools rather than the darkroom analogies.

Digital B&W technology is at a sufficiently high level now that it's the
image and skill/"eye" of the (human) printer that distinguishes the good
ones from the mundane.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Brooks, personally I'm sad that events have led to the necessity of your decision, but 
understand it. Even though I have embraced this ink printing process, I'm fully aware of 
the unique beauty of a master silver print. I never wanted to see it go away. Perhaps 
involvement from accomplished people like yourself familiar the incredible high standards 
set by previous processes will help push these newer methods to similarly high standards.
I hope you feel welcome to lurk here any time.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lensworkpub" <editor@l...> 
wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
> <pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> > Carl Schofield wrote:
> > 
> > >Yes, but read this:
> > >http://brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm
> > >  
> > >
> > Yep.  I know. That doesn't take away from the fact that Lensworks 
> > Special Edition prints, the ones  made by contact printing a negative 
> > made on an imagesetter on Ilford FB paper, are very nice prints.
> 
> Mind if I add my two cents?
> First, thanks for the compliments. I really do appreciate them.
> Second, there is a fundamental difference between our LensWork Special
> Editions prints in gelatin silver and my personal work, now
> pigment-on-paper. In the former we are challenged with making an exact
> replication of the photographer's original print -- the image,
> tonalities, and medium. The goal is to make the reproductions
> "visually indistinguishable" from the original -- a goal which I
> believe we achieved. In the case of my personal artwork, I am free to
> use whatever means are at my disposal to create whatever artistic
> statement I choose to. I consider myself (gosh this sounds
> braggadocios!) an accomplished gelatin silver printer. Nonetheless, I
> now choose to work in pigment because it is unquestionably the best
> medium for my personal work. Of course, this is entirely a statement
> about me and my work and not at all any sort of indictment of gelatin
> silver.
> Having said that, I must be candidly honest and admit that we have now
> officially closed the LensWork darkroom. In fact, we have dismantled
> it completely, effectively shutting down the LensWork gelatin silver
> Special Editions program. We have done so for a variety of reasons not
> the least of which is the increasing difficulty in the availability of
> materials. We used a great deal of Forte paper and it is gone. We used
> Ilford paper and they are hanging on by a thread. Worse, our ability
> to secure large scale digital negatives that are not flawed is almost
> impossible as imagesetter machines fall farther and farther behind the
> curve in technology and maintenance. We were heartsick to make this
> decision, but after a year of debate and vacillation, we have finally
> pulled the plug. For us, it is a sad "end of an era" experience.
> Over the last couple of years we have been frequently asked if we will
> offer LensWork Special Editions in ink. We might. We are not sure.
> Right now I am working on about 10 years of backlogged personal
> projects. For years I focussed my attention on developing and
> perfecting the LensWork hybrid printing technology. (Which I could
> have avoided if Burkholder had just written is book about 5 years
> earlier!) For the last seven years since the introduction of the SE
> program I've spent a great deal of my time making and managing the
> production of the over 17,000 gelatin silver prints we've sold. It's
> now time for a bit of a rest and regroup.
> As a "lurker" ever since Tyler Boley turned me on to this group, I
> hope you don't mind my butting in!
> Brooks Jensen
> Editor, LensWork Publishing
> Written Sunday August 21, 2005 at 3:50PM

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
...
> I hope you feel welcome to lurk here any time.
...
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lensworkpub" <editor@l...> 
> wrote:
>>... I
> > hope you don't mind my butting in!

Oh yeah, please butt in as well.
Tyler

One more thing to worry about:  This list itself is an exception to the
trend.  Many with high-end gear are imaging only for the web.  With a 24"
LCD what more do you need...We have a new news photog in town who has never
used film, or printed in a darkroom.  

  --Ken 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of john dean
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:31 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print
> 
> I should tell you something that the Kodak Poly Fine Art 
> fiber paper is no longer being produced. That was the paper I 
> used and I thought it was almost perfect. I don't think Agfa 
> Portriga is sill made either. Ilford fiber, how long? Even 
> Spottone is gone. One thing for sure, a lot of choices are 
> not going to be available for high-end silver paper. 
> Eventually everyones prints are going to look the same, with 
> a little toning here and there. It is quickly becoming what 
> Platinum work became at the turn of the century - a highly 
> specialized, expensive, and esoteric activity. A lot of 
> people are going to love it for that very reason. Georgia 
> State University just finished building a whole new set of 
> traditional darkrooms. They'll keep the flame going in some 
> of the universities like they did woodburytypes at Arizona 
> State when I was in school.
> 
> John

Brooks,

I, for one, really appreciate your experience. I just learned
something today. I have admired your dedication to fine printmaking
since the beginning of your projects and the amazing quality you guys
have always maintained while making things affordable. Even your pdf
cd of Burkholders work was so good that I actually printed out the
files with piezzo inks on good paper and showed them to my students.
They were so well done. You guys do everything you can do to things right.

You comments about the state of the technology for outputting great
digital negs for contact printing on silver or platinum with
imagesetters kind of gave me a jolt. I didn't know it was disappearing
that fast, but it shouldn't have surprised me. Things are moving along
quicker than we can keep up sometimes. But life goes on and new things
replace the old and so will Lenswork and your limited edition portfolios.

Thanks for the comments, we appreciate it,

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lensworkpub"
<editor@l...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
> <pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> > Carl Schofield wrote:
> > 
> > >Yes, but read this:
> > >http://brooksjensenarts.com/pigmentonpaper.htm
> > >  
> > >
> > Yep.  I know. That doesn't take away from the fact that Lensworks 
> > Special Edition prints, the ones  made by contact printing a negative 
> > made on an imagesetter on Ilford FB paper, are very nice prints.
> 
> Mind if I add my two cents?
> First, thanks for the compliments. I really do appreciate them.
> Second, there is a fundamental difference between our LensWork Special
> Editions prints in gelatin silver and my personal work, now
> pigment-on-paper. In the former we are challenged with making an exact
> replication of the photographer's original print -- the image,
> tonalities, and medium. The goal is to make the reproductions
> "visually indistinguishable" from the original -- a goal which I
> believe we achieved. In the case of my personal artwork, I am free to
> use whatever means are at my disposal to create whatever artistic
> statement I choose to. I consider myself (gosh this sounds
> braggadocios!) an accomplished gelatin silver printer. Nonetheless, I
> now choose to work in pigment because it is unquestionably the best
> medium for my personal work. Of course, this is entirely a statement
> about me and my work and not at all any sort of indictment of gelatin
> silver.
> Having said that, I must be candidly honest and admit that we have now
> officially closed the LensWork darkroom. In fact, we have dismantled
> it completely, effectively shutting down the LensWork gelatin silver
> Special Editions program. We have done so for a variety of reasons not
> the least of which is the increasing difficulty in the availability of
> materials. We used a great deal of Forte paper and it is gone. We used
> Ilford paper and they are hanging on by a thread. Worse, our ability
> to secure large scale digital negatives that are not flawed is almost
> impossible as imagesetter machines fall farther and farther behind the
> curve in technology and maintenance. We were heartsick to make this
> decision, but after a year of debate and vacillation, we have finally
> pulled the plug. For us, it is a sad "end of an era" experience.
> Over the last couple of years we have been frequently asked if we will
> offer LensWork Special Editions in ink. We might. We are not sure.
> Right now I am working on about 10 years of backlogged personal
> projects. For years I focussed my attention on developing and
> perfecting the LensWork hybrid printing technology. (Which I could
> have avoided if Burkholder had just written is book about 5 years
> earlier!) For the last seven years since the introduction of the SE
> program I've spent a great deal of my time making and managing the
> production of the over 17,000 gelatin silver prints we've sold. It's
> now time for a bit of a rest and regroup.
> As a "lurker" ever since Tyler Boley turned me on to this group, I
> hope you don't mind my butting in!
> Brooks Jensen
> Editor, LensWork Publishing
> Written Sunday August 21, 2005 at 3:50PM

Today, I met two young professional photographers just starting their 
business. They stopped at my display booth, at a country fair where I display my 
portrait photography. We started talking about black & white conversions and the 
pigment on watercolor paper printing process. I mentioned how far the process 
has come in a short time and how I used to work in the darkroom. They stopped 
me and explained they were in collage and took a couple digital photography 
courses and were hooked, so they thought they would start by doing 
weddings-portraits and except for taking snapshots of their friends and family growing up 
they have NEVER SHOT FILM AND couldn't CARE LESS IF THEY EVER DID AGAIN THEN ONE 
ASKED WHY WOULD YOU SHOOT FILM?   I said good question. 


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

stephenpho@... wrote:

> Today, I met two young professional photographers just starting their
> business. They stopped at my display booth, at a country fair where I 
> display 

[snip]
they have NEVER SHOT FILM AND couldn't CARE LESS IF THEY EVER DID AGAIN 
THEN ONE
ASKED WHY WOULD YOU SHOOT FILM?   I said good question.

----
OTOH, my good friend's son went off to art school last
year and took with him an old Zeiss folder.  And his dad is
pretty much a hardcore Lisp and Unix computer nerd. So
some of the youngsters out there still have a little class :-)

Am I the only one who finds this whole "debate" pretty
meaningless?  The whole world is going disposable chinese
shoes and clothes, but who cares if one continues to pay a
premium for long lasting Allen Edmonds or nice brands of
italian shoes or other well made clothing?  Will all the nicer
shoe and clothing makers be driven out of business by the
lack of economies of scale or something? Sure, maybe, why
not?  But it's no reason to head on down to PayLess right
now, as far as I can see.  I'll continue to plonk down my $$
at J. Press for real Irish tweed jackets until they shut their
doors :-)

As for the whole "bandwagon" mentality, I just don't view
any of my photographic activities as hitching my wagon to
any particular horse (or is it vice versa?), including "digi
printing."  If I  come to have room for a wet darkroom
sometime in the future, I'm likely to give it a whirl. 

I imagine the vast majority of folks on this list are hobbyists
or artists - which means they can do just about whatever the hell
they feel like to produce the results they are personally looking
for. Little logic need apply.

Caveat: If, OTOH, the "traditionalists" are dis'ing the new media,
I'd gladly say that that is entirely innapropriate as well.

Scott

>

Major improvement in the traditional darkroom: Heiland Splitgrade, Jobo Automatic Film Processors

One more thing to worry about:  This list itself is an exception to the
trend.  Many with high-end gear are imaging only for the web.  With a 24"
LCD what more do you need...We have a new news photog in town who has never
used film, or printed in a darkroom.

  --Ken

That is an astute observation . . . I remember watching and reading sci-fi
when I was younger and frequently coming across the mention of vid panels or
the equivalent on which you would see your art. The rapid advance of plasma
TV and the lowering of the price would possibly indicate the imminent death
of the ink jet print . . . we would have our sci-fi "etch-a-sketch" to put
our work on . . . a cool idea . . . however, I still prefer the concept of a
real print or a real canvas. Even now I prefer to read from the written page
as opposed to a crt or lcd screen.

Paul Aparycki

>It is interesting that Sexton, a >photographer I admire greatly,
>thinks that digital techniques lead to >"instant decisions" whereas
>(presumably) the darkroom does not.

FWIW I believe the comment to which you're responding was made by Bruce 
Barnbaum, not John Sexton. As I indicated in an earlier message, I think 
Barnbaum's comments actually are directed primarily at use of a digital 
camera, not at digital printing as such, though he seems to think the two 
are synonomous. To the extent that his comments are even relevant to digital 
printing (as opposed to use of a digital camera) I think they refelct his 
lack of experience and knowledge of what's involved in making an excellent 
digital print.

One of the problems I have with articles by people like Barnbaum is that 
they're usually commenting, comparing, and criticizing a process that they 
themselves have never used to any significant extent. When many of us here 
compare darkroom printing with digital printing  we're speaking from 
extensive experience with both methods. When someone like Barnbaum talks 
about digital printing he's seems to be doing so mostly on the basis of his 
general impressions of what's involved, without having extensive hands-on 
personal experience.

Your response below is a perfect example of that I think. As you point out, 
because of the ease of going back to a digital print time and time again, 
and always starting from the exact point at which you left off, digital 
printing actually encourages the kind of contemplation that Barnbaum thinks 
is lacking. But never having done any serious digital printing himself, he 
isn't aware of that or at least hasn't given much thought to it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bailey Donnally" <bdonnally@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print



> While he thinks both media will co-exist quite nicely, he does
prefer the
> traditional approach.  He likes the solitude and process of the
darkroom,
> and he dislikes what he sees as "instant decisions" that tend to be
made
> with digital capture -- seeing the image on the LCD, etc. and
deleting
> images too quickly.

It is interesting that Sexton, a photographer I admire greatly,
thinks that digital techniques lead to "instant decisions" whereas
(presumably) the darkroom does not.  I like to work on a photo over a
long period of time.  I come back to images over and over and check
to see if my initial reactions hold up over time, and see if I get
new ideas about how to handle it. For example, recently I won best of
show for an image that I have struggled over for over 25 years before
I got it to look a way that pleased me.

One of the central things I like about digital photography is that it
allows me to do this gracefullly.  I can work with an image, set it
aside for any length of time, then come back to the exact same point
and continue to evaluate (and modify, if desirable) the image and
print it in a reproducable way.

As for deleting, I have just about every image I have shot - good,
bad, and mediocre - stored away, now in easy-to-store gold CDs.


>
> The article struck me as a thoughtful piece rather than a dogmatic
reaction
> of a silver theologian.
>
> Frankly, my view is that the skills of making a good B&W print are
quite
> transferable between the wet darkroom and the computer.  Most of
the content
> of the articles Barnbaum writes about working up a print could be
talking
> about digital tools rather than the darkroom analogies.

Amen!

Bailey Donnally





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

> You comments about the state of the technology for outputting great
> digital negs for contact printing on silver or platinum with
> imagesetters kind of gave me a jolt. I didn't know it was disappearing
> that fast, but it shouldn't have surprised me. Things are moving along
> quicker than we can keep up sometimes. But life goes on and new things
> replace the old and so will Lenswork and your limited edition
portfolios.
> 
> Thanks for the comments, we appreciate it,
> 
> John
> 


Curiously enough, the problems we have been having do not show up
(fortunately) when one uses digital negatives for platinum printing. I
have seen 300-line screen negatives make stunning platinum prints
whereas a 300-line screen negative shows obvious dots in a silver
print. I suspect this has to do with the paper fibers and texture of a
platinum print helping to disguise the dots -- as compared to the
higher resolution of silver paper which requires a 425-line screen to
achieve the same visual effect. Funny, but the older printing
technologies marry more successfully with digital negatives than the
newer ones! What a strange world we live in.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Monday August 22, 2005 at 10:15AM