Black and White Magazine's "change" of heart...

[mikebarger]

I don't own a digital camera, or even a scanner.

End buyer issues are so personal. There are as many opinions as buyers, maybe more

I agree "I" only want "real" photos hanging on my walls and I want Aunt Mary's handiwork, in any condition.

But a great many buyers don't care how it was produced, if they like the finished product.

This digital thing kinda reminds me of a group of my friends who, at the time, could not understand why anyone in the buying public would want those tiny little cassettes. They were sure the cassette market would dry up and go away, after all it was only a fad.

EVERYONE knew reel to reel tapes at 7.5 produced seriously better music. The buying public would come to it's senses in due time.

I'm the only one of this group that still has, and uses regularly a reel to reel (4300SX).

I guess the buying public is going to do what it is going to do and all the reel to reel owners, sorry film camera owners, won't change a thing.

My 2 cents.

Mike

 

[gareth harper]

It really doesn't matter whether or not the end products are identical in every way that can be perceived, the fact that someone actually worked with their hands to make a photograph increases its value to me. That someone is able to press a "print" button on a computer and produce a limitless supply of identical reproductions is not the same.

If they are identical in every way, then why spend hours in the darkroom producing a print that could be done in 15-20 minutes on the computer?

It's the image that counts, anybody who thinks their image is better just because they did it the hard way is kidding themselves. It can only be better if it looks better. It can only be better if it looks different, can stand apart from the other stuff, or whatever.

I do traditional b&w printing because for me I love the look of silver prints, I still believe that in b&w nothing looks better. When it comes to colour I turn to my scanner and/or the lab. I'm not going to spend hours torturing myself in the dark to produce something sub-standard.

 

[Sean]

It's the image that counts, anybody who thinks their image is better just because they did it the hard way is kidding themselves.

It seems that is the highly annoying sentiment of anyone who starts incorporating digital imaging into their workflow. It's like some kind of subconscious crutch to help them justify the move to a lesser method of creating works of art. I'm quite happy producing my own substandard traditional work and trying to improve it, in some ways it's part of the enjoyment. There is a Japanese company that has created a new Karaoke machine which allows anyone to sing perfectly in pitch via digital processing technology. Wow, now ANYONE can sing, isn't that great? After all the final sound is all that matters. Personally I think if you can't sing you take lessons and learn how, if you still can't sing but you enjoy it the keep doing it, if you need a computer to help you sing then what's the point? You might as well just put on a CD..

 

[doughowk]

If it really is all about the end product, then we would all be pushing buttons on computers. The computer can create a perfect image - it doesn't even need to be real since there are enough images available of every subject matter enabling creation of a perfect composite waterfall, moonrise over where-ever, nude, etc.. So, if you really believe its the final product, learn programming especially fuzzy logic and/or AI. The vast majority of consumers who are primarily interested in decorating wall-space will be your market niche.

If, however, you're into the process of traditional photography and appreciate the imperfections that we call Art, there continues to be consumers who want that hand-crafted imperfection and will appreciate your prints. At least that is my hope.

 

[TPPhotog]

This certainly is a lively thread.

OK firstly I'll clarify that for me as Jorge says "care and attention one puts into making a print shows in the final product" is also important to me. There again I'm traditional in several ways, I love B&W shot on film and wet printed, more and more I am collecting classic cameras in various formats which I prefer to shoot compared to "modern" cameras, on my walls are original paintings by local artists, I have mostly hand made pine furniture in my house and given the chance I'd have a reel to reel 8 track again (I loved mine).

Also I also shoot mostly for myself and when I do shoot for others I shoot my way with what I want to use. Otherwise they can find someone else.

As already said the great unwashed public don't know or understand how much work goes into producing a picture on film and wet printing, in fact they couldn't care less.

So on the other hand why should I care if someone uses digital or digitally prints and labels it the same as traditional photography? It doesn't effect what I do or how I feel about what I do. Most of us own cars and they are all called cars, but we know just by looking which ones are massed produced and which are handmade beauties.

 

[gareth harper]

It seems that is the highly annoying sentiment of anyone who starts incorporating digital imaging into their workflow. It's like some kind of subconscious crutch to help them justify the move to a lesser method of creating works of art. I'm quite happy producing my own substandard traditional work and trying to improve it, in some ways it's part of the enjoyment. There is a Japanese company that has created a new Karaoke machine which allows anyone to sing perfectly in pitch via digital processing technology. Wow, now ANYONE can sing, isn't that great? After all the final sound is all that matters. Personally I think if you can't sing you take lessons and learn how, if you still can't sing but you enjoy it the keep doing it, if you need a computer to help you sing then what's the point? You might as well just put on a CD..

I think it's the other way round. Some people think because they do things the old way, it must be better. I just don't get that. It's bollocks, pure and simple. Traditional b&w is slow and painful at times, but it still delivers, I believe, something speacil, something that's hard to get with other techniques. That's why it's worth it. If you can't see it.......................there's no point.

As for creating works of art, well I do photography, i don't buy into all the 'art' bull shit, it's a distaction. I take pictures, I work on them, I present them to others, I show them, it's up to others to decide.

My Canon camera has auto-focus, 35 zone exposure control, all sorts of shit, I have many good prime lenses, some L lenses. There are some amazingly clever cameras out there, they can sometimes make life much easier, but equipment, whether a 10x8 plate camera or the latest all singing dancing DSLR will never take a picture, only the photographer can do that.

 

[TPPhotog]

........ whether a 10x8 plate camera or the latest all singing dancing DSLR will never take a picture, only the photographer can do that.

SPOT ON!!

 

[Jorge]

but we know just by looking which ones are massed produced and which are handmade beauties.

I dont think this applies Tony, people are not as knowledgeable about printing methods as they are about cars. If someone sees a "digital platinum glicèe" next to a real pt/pd print, he might be able to see a difference, but might think that both are made in the same manner and that one guy is better than the other one, thus giving equal value to both prints.

I know that just because something is difficult to do it does not make it better or good, but IMO it is precisely due to the difficulty and expense that one strives to do an outstanding job.

To me it is important that things be labeled as what they are. I have always found incongrous and hypocritical that ink jet poster makers claim that the "end result is what matters" but refuse to label their prints as what they are. If the content is what matter and the end result the only objective without regard to process, then what is wrong with calling them ink jet prints? Not glicèe, not carbon pigment, not digital platinum, not iris.....

 

[TPPhotog]

Jorge I can see where your coming from and have to agree with you. The only problem I have is that there is little or nothing we can do about labeling conventions as we don't control or influence.

 

[gareth harper]

To me it is important that things be labeled as what they are. I have always found incongrous and hypocritical that ink jet poster makers claim that the "end result is what matters" but refuse to label their prints as what they are. If the content is what matter and the end result the only objective without regard to process, then what is wrong with calling them ink jet prints? Not glicèe, not carbon pigment, not digital platinum, not iris.....

That's a good point Jorge. I've noticed some strange labelling out there, surely there are not that many print processes I don't know about. Ok, I know there are quite a few that I don't know about (strange thing to say when you think about it), but I can't make head or tail of some of the labels out there. I might be wrong, and sorry to use this term again, but bull shit springs to mind.

On my first showing as part of an 'open' type exibition, my prints were labelled as 'b&w prints'. For crying out loud, any fool could see that. I wanted to see something like 'traditional b&w print', something people would understand.

I also didn't like the artists statement bit. I'm not an artist. Nor was I too pleased that they removed terms like amatuer from my so called 'artisits statement'. But I guess if I want to show in galleries, and I suppose I do, I'll have to accept some of the bull that goes with it.

 

[Flotsam]

I have a nicely printed Ansel Adams calendar. Is it as valuable as a portfolio of 12 hand printed Silver Gelatin prints from original negatives? After all, the images are the same, isn't that all that matters? The calendar cost Seven bucks.

 

[mikebarger]

I think the point is, you as a consumer were satified with those prints (images) at that price point.

You could have opted for 12 hand printed real photos, at a somewhat higher price point.

I too went with the $7.00 series .

Mike

 

[Jim Chinn]

Why spend thousands of dollars for a designer watch or handmade furniture when you can buy imitation knockoffs that look exactly like the original?

Artists in painting often produce a limited edition of prints or lithographs of their work. they sell for a fraction of the price of the original but if the original is famous enough or valuable enough the prints can command a pretty high premium on the collectors market. But the value of the original determines the value of the prints.

I feel that traditional printing methods will always command a higher premium over digital with a few exceptions. And as prices for digital prints rise it will simply increase the value of well crafted silver, platinum, chrysotype, etc.

As digital output of collectable prints exceeds traditional in the shear volume of work, Traditional will be seen as a more exotic print form, with its emphasis on labor intensive skills and more limited output making it a much more valuable art work.

The very idea that the traditional printer can never produce two prints that are exactly alike no matter how hard they may try will be a positive. The fact that he was hands on from exposure to development of film to printing will enhance value of the end product.

The method of production will always play a part in the perceived value of a product. If you get annoyed becuase someone with a camera thinks they can make photographs the same as you, think about all the people who dabble with printing pixelgraphs on the cheap home printer. These kinds of people will have no respect for the effort and talent that goes into making a digital pixelgraph.

On the flip side, the population will over time begin to see film photography and printing methods as a "black magic" limited to persons with extraordinary talents and abilities. Traditional prints will carry that extra perceived value and cachet.

I am not knocking digital and I have seen incredible digital prints. In the future you will probably see 9 galleries showing digital for every one that shows new traditional. But the traditional will for the most part be collected as a superior end result from a craft and skill standpoint.

 

[Flotsam]

I too went with the $7.00 series .

Mike

Yes. Keeping my string of Polo Ponies in Oats this season has put a big dent in my art buying activities .

 

[Flotsam]

There is something about a process where you set the "Number of Copies" box in Windows to 25 or 100 or whatever, click on "Print" with your mouse, and walk away while an Inkjet printer churns out limitless identical clones that lacks the value of a print that was individually hand-made by the artist or a skilled printer.

 

[smieglitz]

It's the image that counts, anybody who thinks their image is better just because they did it the hard way is kidding themselves...

No Gareth. For you and the general public maybe it's the final image that counts above all else. As I said earlier, to me and many others, it's doing the process that's important. It's the journey, not the destination.

If I was doing it for you, then sure, it wouldn't matter whether I did it by hand or on the computer especially since you've stated it doesn't matter to you. But, I'm only doing it for me and so it is the doing that counts over everything else.

I don't necessarily feel my final image is better than someone else's image because I'm doing it by hand although I do think the hand-crafted object has an inherent value above and beyond the machine print. And, I don't think they ever match. I certainly can tell the difference. Always. (So far.)

For that matter, I've already seized the image before I ever click the shutter. If the image was the most important thing, I never have to even photogragh it or paint it, whatever. I already have it. I put it down on paper or canvas for different reasons, much of which revolves around process. I once took a college course with Painter digital software, and I hated it even though my final images won prizes. The process lacked facture, the smell and feel of buttery oils, etc. It left me empty just as inkjet printing does.

You seem unwilling to make the distiction between image and print and process. If someone appreciates their final machine prints and their computerized process, well that's just fine with me. Grant me the same with process, OK?

Plus, the inkjet prints are not true photographs. They are transcriptions perhaps of original photographs, certainly prints and certainly images, but not photographs in the strict sense of the term, and I consider myself a Photographer. Perhaps that distinction doesn't matter to you, but again, it does to me and many others.

You know, it's like Frank Zappa sang:"Is that a real poncho or is that a Sears' poncho?"

 

[gareth harper]

I have a nicely printed Ansel Adams calendar. Is it as valuable as a portfolio of 12 hand printed Silver Gelatin prints from original negatives? After all, the images are the same, isn't that all that matters? The calendar cost Seven bucks.

Well I'd take the 12 hand prints, particulary if they were printed by Ansel himself, simply because I suspect they will be stunning. Sadly like most of us here I'll only be able to afford the calander, I'm sure it looks good, if well produced maybe almost stunning, but it'll be nowhere near the real thing.

If I was doing it for you, then sure, it wouldn't matter whether I did it by hand or on the computer especially since you've stated it doesn't matter to you. But, I'm only doing it for me and so it is the doing that counts over everything else.

Perhaps it would have been better if I had said it's the end result that counts. I think I picked the wrong word there, sorry. Or maybe now thinking about it, it's the combination of the two. There's little point in having a beautifully finish silver hand print of nothing, and I've seen a good few of those. I've also seen many amazing recent photojourno pictures, and I think darn, would that not have been so much better shot and printed from tri-x rather than an inkjet from a DSLR. But then not everybody has a real choice as to how they shoot.

What I'm trying to say, and either not getting across, either that or some people don't want to recognise what I'm trying to say is... Well traditional prints will only be better, or be perceived to be special if they can continue to offer a look separate to the digital processes. There's still something special about the traditional print. Digital might be able to imitate it, and an imitation is an imitation. Digital may be able to, for some people, add to the process. The scan the film, manipulate it by computer then print it on fibre paper. That's not imitation, it's not pretending to be something it is not, it might be scary, and I might even resent it a bit because I don't have access to it (for now), but it's real.

For digital to be better, it will have to look better than a traditional (or hybrid) print. It will have to stand on it's own two feet. It'll also have to last, and I'm not yet convinced about the longetivity of ink-jet.

Being better is of course subjective, and I think the traditional b&w process has something special that will survive the digital onslaught. Perhaps in some ways as old cars or bikes do, they call it character I think. I might be wrong, but I suspect traditional b&w will be seen as 'the' alternative process. It could become even more special than it is already.

As for colour, I think film still has an edge, but when it comes to finishing, or printing, I cannot see any real advantage in using the traditional colour darkroom. I'll scan mine, tweek em, and take em to the lab to be printed on photo paper (not inkjet).

 

[Lee Shively]

"If they are identical in every way, then why spend hours in the darkroom producing a print that could be done in 15-20 minutes on the computer?"

The carpenter who was installing a door in my house muttered, "My daddy told me if it was easy they wouldn't call it work."

As in artwork. As in hand work.

Given the fact that my income and resources would never allow for the purchase of an original, I would also choose the calender over the photograph.

I have several posters of Georgia O'Keefe prints. They look nice but I don't get the same feeling when I look at them as I do when I go to a gallery and look at the original paintings. I feel as if I am in her presence. I can see the strokes of the brushes, the mixing of the colors and I can wonder what was going on in her life when she was painting.

We photographers often put too much emphasis on the instant the film is exposed. It's easy to lose sight of the whole process when it's not really necessary for the photographer to be the one who prints the negative and makes the final photograph. It's easy to forget that every handmade photographic print is an original.

Elliott Erwitt once said he didn't respect any photographer who wouldn't process his own film. I don't know how well that went over with Henri Cartier-Bresson, but I think he had a valid point.

 

[Sean]

I cannot see any real advantage in using the traditional colour darkroom

Buy some of John Callow's (apugger: mrcallow) big color prints. I see a definite difference between his prints and digital output. They have a natural quality about them that is hard to explain, maybe a subtle richness in the tones and a crisp 3 dimensionality. I really admire his color prints and think anyone here working with color should order a couple since he sells at very reasonable prices..

 

[gareth harper]

The carpenter who was installing a door in my house muttered, "My daddy told me if it was easy they wouldn't call it work."

Tell me, did he use a hand drill? Let me guess it was electric, and a battery one at that. I'm an Instrument mechanic, that's what we use use. If it's a hole saw or a Hilti drill we need to go to all the hassel and pain of fetching and running out an extension. As a tradesman I can tell you we do things the easy way.

Meanwhile I've never heard of a carpenter say Daddy, not round here anyway!

We photographers often put too much emphasis on the instant the film is exposed. It's easy to lose sight of the whole process when it's not really necessary for the photographer to be the one who prints the negative and makes the final photograph.

I'll agree with that, in a round about way. I'm always telling people it's takes 1/125th to take the thing, and bleedin hours to finnish it.

 

[Lee Shively]

"Meanwhile I've never heard of a carpenter say Daddy, not round here anyway!"

You ain't from around here.

 

[Woolliscroft]

Unlike many of you, I don't take artistic pictures. I'm just no good at it. As an archaeologist I take pictures to form a record. I need good resolution and the best archival storage life and, for the moment, that still means film. If at any time the balance shifts to digital, I might well change over. I am not wedded to silver photography for "craft" or artistic reasons. As for the original question, I am quite happy for photography magazines to cover digital. It is interesting to see how/if things are progressing, just so long as the remaining few that cover film as well keep on doing so.

David.

 

[Jeremy]

I'm always telling people it's takes 1/125th to take the thing, and bleedin hours to finish it.

nail on the head

 

[gareth harper]

I just picked up a copy of this months Black and White Photography here in the UK.

There's some controversial stuff even on the front page.

At the very top of the page in big black letters it says, "The Nikon F6 - film photography's last stand?"

And down the bottom of the front page "Shades of grey Part one of a major inkjet paper test"

Only had a flick through so far.

 

[DavidS]

re: B&W's change of heart

Digital photography is here and it's going to stay here for a while until something else replaces digital photography. That doesn't mean that traditional photography is an endangered species, it just means that for the millions of Americans who want to take a 100 or so pictures this 4th of july and then download them to their cousins half way across the country in an instant, they have an easy, cost effective way of doing things.

There are some photographers who feel that with the high megapixel, they can capture things traditional cameras can't. Perhaps grains of sand or other nuainces will be presented in higher detail. Digital Art Photography is not a threat to Traditional Art Photography. To begin with, the fine art photography market is a niche market, with only maybe 1-2 million people involved in it nationwide. The real die-hard traditional photographers such as most everyone on this forum will still continue to create their masterpieces and galleries will continue to represent those works to collectors of fine art photography.

Digital photography is going to be here for a while. A magazine, like B&W that needs to expand its number of subscribers, needs to expand to the biggest potential readership for its niche. Including digital photography will help them do that.