Digital BW, The Print

I saw the Walker Evans Carbon and Silver show in the lobby of the UBS
building in NYC yesterday (51st and 6th).  It has a relatively large
number of Evans prints and a display of some his cameras and I found
it very worthwhile.

While my eye may be less discriminate than the previous poster's, I
was not troubled by posterization in the digital prints.  One print
aside, the problem was visible only in the very large prints (measured
in feet rather than inches) and not from a normal viewing distance.  

There were a number of these very large prints (Joe's Auto Graveyard)
among others that were very striking.  It made me see Evan's work in a
new light. That was especially true for the famous shot of the studio
window with all of the small prints in it.  There was also at least
one (perhaps more) opportunities to compare traditional and digital
prints of the same photo.  As has been repeated endless times on this
list, they simply are different.  I felt that in more than one
instance the digital prints had a greater tonal range and more
luminosity than the tradional silver prints.  

Again, what was interesting was the chance to compare the two
processes and to see another slant on Evan's work.  If you are in the
area it is worth a visit.  

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@...> 
wrote:
...
> While my eye may be less discriminate than the previous poster's, I
> was not troubled by posterization in the digital prints. 

I have to say though, given the current state of the art, I find it inexcusable and not helpful 
for ink's acceptance.
I haven't seen the prints, but that there have been comments is disturbing.
Just my opinion.
Tyler

Hello All, I will not repeat my recent history with this project, see  
my post from a few weeks ago.
But I experienced no posterization with the images produced Martson/ 
Hill. The general reaction
to the show is very good, even with some minor faults. On Tuesday of  
this week John Hill gave
one of the directors of the Library of Congress a tour and he wants  
to possibly have it travel.
There is nothing shoddy about any of the images, in fact they exceed  
most of W.E.'s standards.
Thank you, Tom

I should have made no comments about the prints. I have not seen them
myself. There's something addictive about the taste of my foot.
I'm hypersensitive to the entire issue. When you have people with a
definite agenda showing up to galleries with loups looking for reasons
to slam our prints, etc., well, I'm just tired of the whole deal.
We have, however, quietly slipped into an era of problem free output
with no fanfare and hardly noticing it ourselves. Some of the most
beautiful monochromatic prints I've seen are digital ink, and I
believe it will get even better.
My apologies for any possible slight I may have enabled with my post
about the Walker Evans exhibit. I'm happy it's even occurred, with ink
and silver together.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Patsenka
<tpatsenka@...> wrote:

>
> Hello All, I will not repeat my recent history with this project, see  
> my post from a few weeks ago.
> But I experienced no posterization with the images produced Martson/ 
> Hill. The general reaction
> to the show is very good, even with some minor faults. On Tuesday of  
> this week John Hill gave
> one of the directors of the Library of Congress a tour and he wants  
> to possibly have it travel.
> There is nothing shoddy about any of the images, in fact they exceed  
> most of W.E.'s standards.
> Thank you, Tom
>

Hello All, My response was to now one in particular, least of all to  
you Tyler. I have
also witnessed and enjoyed our ink print standards improve. I believe  
you have been
one of the important contributors to those advances. You have helped  
guide this
new esthetic and from what i have heard is that your work is  
masterful. Again I will
repeat that the exhibit was for the general audience, most of whom  
never heard of
Evans, it is one small part of our shared American history, warts and  
all.
Regards, Tom

I don't want to beat a dead horse but.. such a high profile historical
and influential figure as Evans is very important to get it right if
the negatives are workable at this scale. I know from talking to
gallery owners and museum people over the years that they are coming
around finally to inkjet and shows like this (and the reviews in the
NY Times!) and the Bill Brandt monochrome show that David Adamson
produced, apparently with Ultrachome, are extremely important to the
acceptance of inkjet for us all. 

John




 Again I will

> repeat that the exhibit was for the general audience, most of whom  
> never heard of
> Evans, it is one small part of our shared American history, warts and  
> all.
> Regards, Tom
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Patsenka <tpatsenka@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hello All, My response was to now one in particular, least of all to  
> you Tyler...

No problem Tom, I realized that, and my initial reply was not specifically to Steve.
Since I haven't seen the prints I shouldn't have said anything.
Just blabbing as usual.
Tyler

Hi All:

I was privileged to see the Walker Evans show (loupe in hand), and,
from the comments here, approached it with some trepidation.  I did
NOT want to see a poor showing of the digital prints.

To make a long story short, I was blown away by the quality of the
show, in general, and the prints, in particular.  Where there were
silver and digital prints side by side, latter came off VERY well,
with lots of deep blacks, gradations, and pop.  I found VERY few
digital blemishes.  The general comments of the viewers were MOST
complimentary.  I left very relieved.  It was a damn GOOD SHOW!

Jack Winberg



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> I should have made no comments about the prints. I have not seen them
> myself. There's something addictive about the taste of my foot.
> I'm hypersensitive to the entire issue. When you have people with a
> definite agenda showing up to galleries with loups looking for reasons
> to slam our prints, etc., well, I'm just tired of the whole deal.
> We have, however, quietly slipped into an era of problem free output
> with no fanfare and hardly noticing it ourselves. Some of the most
> beautiful monochromatic prints I've seen are digital ink, and I
> believe it will get even better.
> My apologies for any possible slight I may have enabled with my post
> about the Walker Evans exhibit. I'm happy it's even occurred, with ink
> and silver together.
> Tyler
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Patsenka
> <tpatsenka@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello All, I will not repeat my recent history with this project,
see  

> > my post from a few weeks ago.
> > But I experienced no posterization with the images produced Martson/ 
> > Hill. The general reaction
> > to the show is very good, even with some minor faults. On Tuesday of  
> > this week John Hill gave
> > one of the directors of the Library of Congress a tour and he wants  
> > to possibly have it travel.
> > There is nothing shoddy about any of the images, in fact they exceed  
> > most of W.E.'s standards.
> > Thank you, Tom
> >
>

How were the prints lit?  Halogen?  I find the ImagePrint B&W I get 
from my 7600 & IP6 look fabulous in a gallery with Halogen spot 
lights.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jwinberg1" 
<jack.winberg@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All:
> 
> I was privileged to see the Walker Evans show (loupe in hand), and,
> from the comments here, approached it with some trepidation.  I did
> NOT want to see a poor showing of the digital prints.
> 
> To make a long story short, I was blown away by the quality of the
> show, in general, and the prints, in particular.  Where there were
> silver and digital prints side by side, latter came off VERY well,
> with lots of deep blacks, gradations, and pop.  I found VERY few
> digital blemishes.  The general comments of the viewers were MOST
> complimentary.  I left very relieved.  It was a damn GOOD SHOW!
> 
> Jack Winberg
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > I should have made no comments about the prints. I have not seen 
them
> > myself. There's something addictive about the taste of my foot.
> > I'm hypersensitive to the entire issue. When you have people with 
a
> > definite agenda showing up to galleries with loups looking for 
reasons
> > to slam our prints, etc., well, I'm just tired of the whole deal.
> > We have, however, quietly slipped into an era of problem free 
output
> > with no fanfare and hardly noticing it ourselves. Some of the most
> > beautiful monochromatic prints I've seen are digital ink, and I
> > believe it will get even better.
> > My apologies for any possible slight I may have enabled with my 
post
> > about the Walker Evans exhibit. I'm happy it's even occurred, 
with ink
> > and silver together.
> > Tyler
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Thomas 
Patsenka
> > <tpatsenka@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello All, I will not repeat my recent history with this 
project,
> see  
> > > my post from a few weeks ago.
> > > But I experienced no posterization with the images produced 
Martson/ 
> > > Hill. The general reaction
> > > to the show is very good, even with some minor faults. On 
Tuesday of  
> > > this week John Hill gave
> > > one of the directors of the Library of Congress a tour and he 
wants  
> > > to possibly have it travel.
> > > There is nothing shoddy about any of the images, in fact they 
exceed  

> > > most of W.E.'s standards.
> > > Thank you, Tom
> > >
> >
>

Jack,

> To make a long story short, I was blown away by the quality of the
> show, in general, and the prints, in particular.  Where there were
> silver and digital prints side by side, latter came off VERY well,
> with lots of deep blacks, gradations, and pop.  I found VERY few
> digital blemishes.  The general comments of the viewers were MOST
> complimentary.  I left very relieved.  It was a damn GOOD SHOW!

Thanks for the report, is good to hear about the ink prints holding
their own so well.  It may be that in future silver vs ink
discussions, this show may be mentioned as an example, or a "high
water mark" or something.  The fact that some significant historical
work in both types were shown side by side is new to me.  I don't know
if it's a "first", but it seems more widely publicised than anything
to come before it and it might hold some significance for future
discussions.

Regards,
Clayton


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