Black & White Magazine (US)

david b · Sep 3, 2004

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 · Sep 3, 2004

Good news.

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 3, 2004

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

Jorge · Sep 3, 2004

Sad, but I guess inevitable.

Joe Lipka · Sep 3, 2004

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

James Bleifus · Sep 4, 2004

david b said:
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 · Sep 4, 2004

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 · Sep 4, 2004

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 · Sep 4, 2004

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 · Sep 5, 2004

Sean said:
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 · Sep 5, 2004

James M. Bleifus said:
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 · Sep 5, 2004

Aggie said:
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 · Sep 5, 2004

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.

Black & White Magazine (US)

david b

mark

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Jorge

Joe Lipka

James Bleifus

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Sean

Admin

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

James Bleifus

Aggie

James Bleifus

Aggie

Black & White Magazine (US)

Moderator

Moderator

Admin

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency