Black & White Magazine (US)

[david b]

In the new October 2004 issue of B&W, the editor writes about their new "digital technology in the darkroom policy".

In short, they will accept work produced by "hybrid" methods as long as the photographer has traditional photographs for sale.

So they will accept work as long as the photographer is "producing a conventional print and preserving the handcrafted process".

Just thought this was interesting see we had this discussion a month or so ago.

 

[mark]

Good news.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Good to see we have some consensus on this issue between APUG and _B&W_.

 

[Jorge]

Sad, but I guess inevitable.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Yes, but are they going to have "hybrid" photos in a special section, like our hybrid forum in APUG?

 

[James Bleifus]

So they will accept work as long as the photographer is "producing a conventional print and preserving the handcrafted process".

I read it a little differently. The photographer needs to capture the image on film AND print using conventional paper, like Huntington Witherill does. So just using conventional paper isn't enough. I don't know that splitting those hairs means much to me but it seems important to many people.

Cheers,

James

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In the gallery and museum world, an object is usually described by the materials of which the final product is made--"C-print," "Gelatin Silver Print," "Albumen Print," "Oil on Canvas," etc. So I think _B&W_'s refinement of its policy makes a certain amount of sense, being mainly a magazine for collectors. There may be intermediate steps that are digital, but the product that the collector purchases is still a C-print, Gelatin Silver print, Albumen print, etc.

 

[Sean]

Shouldn't it be listed as a "digital c-print" and not just a "c-print"? This is what annoys me, the digital camp gets free reign over ALL of our traditional processes, and can pass off all their hybrid work as 100% traditional work -very convenient..

I have not read the item in question though so may be misinterpreting this discussion about it..

Personally, I would like to know if a print is a c-print made digitally or a c-print made with traditional methods before I fork over the cash.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree. LightJets and Chromiras have a different texture than conventional C-prints--better in some ways, and in some ways not. That said, as an artifact, they both have the same physical properties. It's a different issue than, say, "Platinum Giclee" or "Selenium Ink" or "Pigment Prints" that are really inkjets.

 

[James Bleifus]

Shouldn't it be listed as a "digital c-print" and not just a "c-print"? This is what annoys me, the digital camp gets free reign over ALL of our traditional processes, and can pass off all their hybrid work as 100% traditional work -very convenient..

B&W usually does a good job describing the printing process used (at least in their articles. Ads are a different thing, and, looking back to when I was shooting digital, I wish I'd described my prints as "digital silver gelatin" though everyone who owns one of my prints also knows my process). In previous articles where B&W has featured work that was available both traditionally and digitally, such as the Al Satterwhite article in the August 2003 issue, they've made it a point to denoting which process is available with which prints. I'd be surprised if they stopped disclosing the photographer's approach. Of course, they're relying on the photographer being forthcoming about his/her process. . .

Cheers,

James

 

[Aggie]

looking back to when I was shooting digital, I wish I'd described my prints as "digital silver gelatin"

You did the correct thing by not calling a digital print a digital silver gelatin print. there is no gelatin or silver in a digital print. It may be a print that started using a negative, you have not qualified that. If it was just for a marketing tool, by saying it was a silver gelatin PRINT when it was digital is wrong. It is misleading.

 

[James Bleifus]

You did the correct thing by not calling a digital print a digital silver gelatin print. there is no gelatin or silver in a digital print. It may be a print that started using a negative, you have not qualified that. If it was just for a marketing tool, by saying it was a silver gelatin PRINT when it was digital is wrong. It is misleading.

Ah, I should have explained it better in my post. I was making (and still make for a few of my old images) silver prints from a digital neg which was captured digitally. So maybe I should have said "digital hybrid silver gelatin print" or something along those lines.

As for the marketing, I'm always straight forward in telling people my processes. Life's too short to be deceitful.

Cheers,

James

 

[Aggie]

Good for you James. I hate this medium sometimes. The internet just doesn't allow the full meaning of your words without the face to face with the person making the statements. Then other times it does a very good job.