New ILFORD Silver Gelatin Products ( Laser )

Bruce Watson said:

Said by someone who clearly hasn't paid his dues in the lightroom workflow. It never ceases to amaze me that everyone thinks the other guy has it easy. People really do think that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!

I've done both and I can tell you from experience that it takes a lot more work to make a first class print digitally than it does in the darkroom. That said, the result can be better -- if you are good enough at it.

It's really easy to make crap either way, and painfully difficult to make a good print either way. To call people who are printing digitally "lazy" just exposes your cluelessness.

That you don't like that Ilford is serving a market that you don't participate in is meaningless. You don't like the product, don't buy it. No one is forcing you. But if diversifying into this market helps Ilford stay alive and even prosper, I'm all for it. Whether I use the product or not.

Click to expand...

I know it takes time, and skill in the "lightroom" but once the work is done, can not virtually any volume of identical prints then be generated with little more input than tending a machine? Perhaps that is Ryan's point.

By the way Ryan, Ilford is a UK company, and besides, even if it's a tiny sliver the vast American market Ilford, or any other company with a brain seeks you refer to, I and allot of other people here work damn hard, and thats all I'll say. (Wish I was working damn hard in AZ right now... its started to snow here....)

JBrunner said:

I know it takes time, and skill in the "lightroom" but once the work is done, can not virtually any volume of identical prints then be generated with little more input than tending a machine? Perhaps that is Ryan's point.

Click to expand...

If that's his point, he, and you, are wrong. Ain't nothing that simple. Anyone who's spend a couple of days fighting an ink clog knows better.

And if you know what you are doing, can you not produce nearly identical prints in the darkroom? I know I can, but I've got my process under control. That's what notes are for! That's why we have those timers and temperature controllers, etc. and run all those tests.

As to "any volume" have you priced paper and inks? And if you think that inkjet isn't subject to the same batch-to-batch repeatability problems, or temperature and humidity problems, or drydown (yes there really is a digital "dry down"), or... then like I say, you haven't paid your dues.

Everybody seems to think that they have the tough job and everyone else has it easy.

"Comparisons to sculpture and painting are only relevant if you are willing to ignore the inherent duplicative quality of photographs, films, etc. Being able to make many (more or less) exact copies in a mechanical manner (whether done by a person or a machine)has always been one of the defining elements of (negative based) photography. Digital based output is the culmination of that sort of approach and I applaud Ilford for making a product that will improve, or at least diversify, the options of people that need or want that kind of process."

I would beg to differ in that a hand made print which has been heavily manipulated under the enlarger head can not be exactly duplicated form print to print.

isaacc7 said:

For me, it is the act of creating that is what "art" is all about, I really never think about the gallery scene or worry about what people might think of the "value" of my photographs. I usually only make one or two copies of a print anyway, so that part isn't any different than what happens for me in the darkroom. I obviously don't make any money at this, so I expect my opinion to be different than someone who does. To answer the question, if the prints look the same (or at least similar enough such that the overall impact is not lessened), I view the prints as being exactly the same, "preciousness" never enters into it for me regardless of how it was printed. The print either works or it doesn't. The trick of course is that often times they can not look the same, and there isn't always a clear cut "better" version to be had. Both types of processes have advantages and different prints will require different processes to get the most out of them.

In my mind, most (modern) photographic printing is a mechanical process anyway, I really don't see what the big deal is about. Some time is potentially saved if you want to make many multiple copies, but I dare say that that situation does not apply to most photographers. I am also in the "the object is not the art" camp when it comes to photography. Comparisons to sculpture and painting are only relevant if you are willing to ignore the inherent duplicative quality of photographs, films, etc. Being able to make many (more or less) exact copies in a mechanical manner (whether done by a person or a machine)has always been one of the defining elements of (negative based) photography. Digital based output is the culmination of that sort of approach and I applaud Ilford for making a product that will improve, or at

least diversify, the options of people that need or want that kind of process.

Isaac

Click to expand...

Me thinks the horse is dead. But you might want to smack it a few more times just to make sure.

As someone who prints reproductions of painting for Museums on an Epson 9600 daily, I can say that once the initial color matching and proofing is done, then it IS just a matter of tending the machine to make exact copies. I have not had a clog that took more than 5 minutes to cure knock on wood but then I maintain and use my printer daily. Epsons do not like to go unused for any period of time or you will run into terrible clogs... so I have heard.

Bruce Watson said:

If that's his point, he, and you, are wrong. Ain't nothing that simple. Anyone who's spend a couple of days fighting an ink clog knows better.

And if you know what you are doing, can you not produce nearly identical prints in the darkroom? I know I can, but I've got my process under control. That's what notes are for! That's why we have those timers and temperature controllers, etc. and run all those tests.

As to "any volume" have you priced paper and inks? And if you think that inkjet isn't subject to the same batch-to-batch repeatability problems, or temperature and humidity problems, or drydown (yes there really is a digital "dry down"), or... then like I say, you haven't paid your dues.

Everybody seems to think that they have the tough job and everyone else has it easy.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't have room at home for a proper darkroom, so I'm gung ho about sending my B&W scans off to get them digitally printed. It's probably better to be able to scan my negs, edit 'em, and then print 'em with this stuff than drop off a neg at a photo lab and have somebody else do the deed. My participation in the work has gone up, this way.

You've always been able to crank out any volume of identical prints. Does it really make a difference between cranking 'em out on a laser, printing to ortho film and contact printing that, using dyes on a seperate sheet of film to dodge, burn, and change contrast, or training a small darkroom army to mechanically produce the same print based on the master's instructions?

Gibran said:

"Comparisons to sculpture and painting are only relevant if you are willing to ignore the inherent duplicative quality of photographs, films, etc. Being able to make many (more or less) exact copies in a mechanical manner (whether done by a person or a machine)has always been one of the defining elements of (negative based) photography. Digital based output is the culmination of that sort of approach and I applaud Ilford for making a product that will improve, or at least diversify, the options of people that need or want that kind of process."

I would beg to differ in that a hand made print which has been heavily manipulated under the enlarger head can not be exactly duplicated form print to print.

Click to expand...

But you do try, would you be disappointed if they did all look the same? That's a serious question, I get the distinct impression that some people would be disappointed if their technique in the darkroom was so good that every print of the same image was the same, was exactly what the first "final" print was and presumably the best representation of the photographer's "vision". Does anyone intentionally alter their printing to make it different from the last one? My point was that people that are good in the darkroom will have no trouble making prints that are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the first one. There are minor variations, but they should not affect the end result, the overall effect in any noticeable way, otherwise the entire idea of an "edition" is called into question.

In the end, the ability to make many perfect copies is not why most people choose to use a digital system. There are many reasons why someone would use digital printing techniques, but very few photographers need to make quantities of prints. If there is an "art" to printing, it lies in the decisions made in order to make the print match what the photographer had in mind. How it gets there, or even who prints it is of no concern to me. That is why I consider the digital alternative a great thing, I have that many more tools at my disposal. I am in love with images, not processes.

Isaac

Actually, I make only one print and stay away from editions as I see editions as entirely a marketing gimmick having nothing to do with the actual Art. One ideal print which reflects how I think that image is represented to its fullest. In the darkroom, I set parameters for Control but within them I allow for that happy unexpected outcome. But I'm not making so called "Straight" perfect prints as you will see if you look at any of my work in the Gallery. There would never be a way to exactly reproduce my prints. There would always be differences due to my working methods. Allowing this in the Process means that the Journey will not always be exactly the same to reach my ideal final image.

"How it gets there, or even who prints it is of no concern to me." How it gets there(that whole Journey through the Process" and the fact that it got there by me and the decisions, chance mistakes, Happy accidents and discoveries ect. I made and which directly influenced the final Image is part of the Magic for me and what makes that particular print unique. But, everyone works differently so there is of course no right nor wrong.

isaacc7 said:

But you do try, would you be disappointed if they did all look the same? That's a serious question, I get the distinct impression that some people would be disappointed if their technique in the darkroom was so good that every print of the same image was the same, was exactly what the first "final" print was and presumably the best representation of the photographer's "vision". Does anyone intentionally alter their printing to make it different from the last one? My point was that people that are good in the darkroom will have no trouble making prints that are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the first one. There are minor variations, but they should not affect the end result, the overall effect in any noticeable way, otherwise the entire idea of an "edition" is called into question.

In the end, the ability to make many perfect copies is not why most people choose to use a digital system. There are many reasons why someone would use digital printing techniques, but very few photographers need to make quantities of prints. If there is an "art" to printing, it lies in the decisions made in order to make the print match what the photographer had in mind. How it gets there, or even who prints it is of no concern to me. That is why I consider the digital alternative a great thing, I have that many more tools at my disposal. I am in love with images, not processes.

Isaac

Click to expand...

Gibran said:

"How it gets there, or even who prints it is of no concern to me." How it gets there(that whole Journey through the Process" and the fact that it got there by me and the decisions, chance mistakes, Happy accidents and discoveries ect. I made and which directly influenced the final Image is part of the Magic for me and what makes that particular print unique. But, everyone works differently so there is of course no right nor wrong.

Click to expand...

It's funny, what some people embrace, I see as a continuing source of frustration... As you say, there are no right or wrong stances here as long as you get what you're after

Isaac

Bruce Watson said:

If that's his point, he, and you, are wrong. Ain't nothing that simple. Anyone who's spend a couple of days fighting an ink clog knows better.

And if you know what you are doing, can you not produce nearly identical prints in the darkroom? I know I can, but I've got my process under control. That's what notes are for! That's why we have those timers and temperature controllers, etc. and run all those tests.

As to "any volume" have you priced paper and inks? And if you think that inkjet isn't subject to the same batch-to-batch repeatability problems, or temperature and humidity problems, or drydown (yes there really is a digital "dry down"), or... then like I say, you haven't paid your dues.

Everybody seems to think that they have the tough job and everyone else has it easy.

Click to expand...

Why all of a sudden are we talking about ink? And why the constant whining for computer inkjet posters to be regarded the same as a darkroom print? They are clearly different things. A computer and a printer can endlessly reproduce Ansels "El Capitan" but no matter how well it was done, even if you could see the piece of lint in the sky, it won't be an original. Niether is the Alan Ross version, but which would you want to have, the one AR prints from Ansels negative, or a computer print? Print any way you want, just don't call it a traditional print, because its not.
Yes, I have fought with both methods of printing. Yes, inkjet supplies are ridiculously expensive, especially for the crud that it is. I have made many prints, many different ways. Computers generally suck IMO, but Inkjet printing is far easier than darkroom work. Anybody who says it isn't, is feeding you a line of unowat. And this isn't even that, as far as the photographer is concerned. It's digital printing with a lightjet, not ink. Do your computer work, dial in your profile, have the lab print a test, make your adjustments, and pick up 500 prints a couple of days later, just like color lightjets, and you can have as many as you can afford. Pick up the phone a week later and order some more. I have been down this road personally, and I walked away with a distinct taste in my mouth. It's not easy or cheap to mass produce cars either, but I don't see Fords masquerading as hand made works of art, so don't go telling me that a lightjet print on black and white paper is something special. It is something that the portrait and wedding mills will love. It will be good for Ilford, and that will be good for us. But is not the same as what comes out of my darkroom. Thats what I'm on about, If its so great, it can just stand on its own, and not pretend to be what it clearly is not. A print of a computer manipulated scan of one of my negatives made on a machine is not a print that I, the artist, has created. Most (not all) photographers view printing their own negatives as an important part of being a photographer. If someone wants to use a different method, inkjet posters, or whatever, thats great, but it isn't really a photograph to me. Photographs are made with hands. Lay people may have accepted this stuff as photography, but I have never been much for caring about the general hairless ape mass of grunts opinion hammer. Just think of all the great work that can now be made affordable through mass production. Pepper#30 on silver for a couple hundred bucks, or even less if WalMart gets involved. Just the same as EW's right? Oh, BTW, I'm not wrong, I have a different opinion.

I think most photographers can agree that the process of developing and printing in a darkroom is A LOT more work then doing digital. Sure, producing digital prints takes alot of TIME but not necessarly the physical WORK that being in the darkroom takes.

Being a MFA photography student at UofA in Tucson, I see students sometimes sitting in front of a computer for 8+ hours at a time working images in Photoshop. At the same time, someone is spending 8+ hours in the darkroom. Both photographers spent the same amount of time working on the image, both photographer produced the same quality of print, but who had to "work" harder at it? Personally, I feel the individual that did all the physical work with their hands in the darkroom did more work than the individual that sat there on his butt clicking a mouse and the computer doing the rest.

I did not say that people who do digital are lazy or don't spend alot of time on their photographs, because that is not true. Some of us just prefer the "handcrafted" art over computer generated art. As a collector, I would much rather purchase a print that someone physically spent a lot of time working on, then one where the computer did the work and the artist just guided it.

Personally, I feel that all digital is trying to do is prove itself worthy in the photography world, and try to be at least EQUAL to what one can do in the darkroom. Digital is continually trying to match the tonal quality, tones, sharpness, richness, archival rating, ect of a silver print. They have made tools in Photoshop like "sprocket holes" to make it look like film, or "brush strokes" to make it look like an alternative process print. Now they have taken it so far to make it possible to print on silver paper. I think it's great for the digital world, absolutely fabulous, however I think that digital should stop trying to disguise itself as traditional, because that is all it's trying to do.

I feel digital should just be classified into its own art form and traditional photography stand alone as well. It has just become very annoying to see digital photographers trying to pass their prints off as "traditional prints", and this new paper will just give digital photographers another way to do so.

If your doing digital, you might as well acknowledge the fact that you produce digital prints. It's okay! If your wanting to produce traditional prints, I feel they should come from the darkroom. Enough said.

Regards,

Ryan McIntosh

Bruce Watson said:

Said by someone who clearly hasn't paid his dues in the lightroom workflow. It never ceases to amaze me that everyone thinks the other guy has it easy. People really do think that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!

I've done both and I can tell you from experience that it takes a lot more work to make a first class print digitally than it does in the darkroom. That said, the result can be better -- if you are good enough at it.

It's really easy to make crap either way, and painfully difficult to make a good print either way. To call people who are printing digitally "lazy" just exposes your cluelessness.

That you don't like that Ilford is serving a market that you don't participate in is meaningless. You don't like the product, don't buy it. No one is forcing you. But if diversifying into this market helps Ilford stay alive and even prosper, I'm all for it. Whether I use the product or not.

Click to expand...

Ryan, I agree. And someday digital may rival, or even exceed analog...

But, I sit in front of a computer a LOT every day. And I like the tatcile feel and getting 'involved' in the darkroom. IT's FUN and different than sitting in front of the computer. It's just what I prefer. To each his own.

I also like the mystery of analog. It's NOT instant gratification. I.e. don't know if you got a great image until you develop the neg and then print the neg. I like this 'mystery' if you will.

Lot's of folks argue the digital vs. analog thing from the final print 'look' - whatever.....

I frankly like the ANALOG PROCESS.

But I think the Ilford paper will help everyone get closer to 'cranking' out images and make it easier for those selling images. Look at Clyde Butcher - he offers both analog and digital prints. AT the gallery they will even tout the quality of analog over the digital (you can see it too with your own eyes...). BUT, digital is less expensive and more affordable for those that want a CB photograph....and if you didn't have it side by side with the analog print......

I think this is great, if this paper becomes popular and economically feasable, then BW paper will have a future, and companies like ilford can afford to keep the nitch (traditional) products in production.

Fuji already proved this with the frontier.

This initial thread was to announce an new fibre paper to be used by photographers.
Ilford/Harmon digital fibre base paper is exactly the same product that users of Gallerie 4 are using in the darkroom.
The difference is extra red sensitivity and the ability to be use in a laser exposing unit.
Holy shit batman what is all this crap about. Try it or don't, but let time judge its merits.

Exactly, Scott! It's all about the experience one has! Also being involved and the excitment and mystery is what makes the darkroom exciting for me. It's also about being in a state of mind when working, and the amazing feeling you get when producing art. It's something that cannot be felt while working on a computer. Much to some peoples suprise, I've experimented with digital quite abit, even got some "great pictures"...however they lacked any feeling an emotion from the artist, so they went into the trash.

Handcrafted art conveys the personal feelings, expression and emotions of the artist, and I see that more in a handcrafted print then in a digital print. One can produce a beautiful image in digital, but somehow they all still feel lifeless to me.

Regards,

Ryan McIntosh

Scott Peters said:

Ryan, I agree. And someday digital may rival, or even exceed analog...

But, I sit in front of a computer a LOT every day. And I like the tatcile feel and getting 'involved' in the darkroom. IT's FUN and different than sitting in front of the computer. It's just what I prefer. To each his own.

I also like the mystery of analog. It's NOT instant gratification. I.e. don't know if you got a great image until you develop the neg and then print the neg. I like this 'mystery' if you will.

Lot's of folks argue the digital vs. analog thing from the final print 'look' - whatever.....

I frankly like the ANALOG PROCESS.

But I think the Ilford paper will help everyone get closer to 'cranking' out images and make it easier for those selling images. Look at Clyde Butcher - he offers both analog and digital prints. AT the gallery they will even tout the quality of analog over the digital (you can see it too with your own eyes...). BUT, digital is less expensive and more affordable for those that want a CB photograph....and if you didn't have it side by side with the analog print......

Click to expand...

It's wonderful to see people so passionate about traditional photography.

To my mind this is a good thing.
On a completely selfish level, it means I can get fibre based prints.
I have no darkroom equipment (I saw someone mention having no replies to an offer of a free setup, pity on the other side of the world!), and i'm not entirely sure I could manage to squeeze it in to my small bathroom either.

I can take my film to the lab and get them printed, which i've done recently. I got my print the next day, on colour paper. I'm not completely happy with this (sure, the print looks good), so I asked them to do a traditional hand print aswell. I'll be able to make the comparison in a few weeks.

With this, I can get the fibre paper, and I can have a hand (sure, not literal) in how it looks, rather than trusting it to whoever's printing in the lab that day.

Sure, it's not for everyone, nothing ever is. But this way I can still develop my own film, scan it in, adjust and have some nice prints done. Not everyone has the luxury of running their own galleries, darkrooms and labs.

Bruce Watson said:

Said by someone who clearly hasn't paid his dues in the lightroom workflow. It never ceases to amaze me that everyone thinks the other guy has it easy. People really do think that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!

I've done both and I can tell you from experience that it takes a lot more work to make a first class print digitally than it does in the darkroom. That said, the result can be better -- if you are good enough at it.

It's really easy to make crap either way, and painfully difficult to make a good print either way. To call people who are printing digitally "lazy" just exposes your cluelessness.

That you don't like that Ilford is serving a market that you don't participate in is meaningless. You don't like the product, don't buy it. No one is forcing you. But if diversifying into this market helps Ilford stay alive and even prosper, I'm all for it. Whether I use the product or not.

Click to expand...

Please,

It appears you have no idea what you are talking about. First off I agree with Ryan 100% that Americans are totally and completely lazy, they all want the instant gratification factor, which is a total and complete insult to anyone that takes art seriously. Anyone can push a button on a keyboard and use the mouse to modify the image with little or no skill at all. But not many can learn how to test, develop film; learn how it responds to different papers and visualization the final image in their head and not on a computer screen. People that use digital for art are not artist but rather graphic designers and nothing more than that. They are lazy and lie to everyone including themselves that they are producing art while in fact they are producing nothing more than what a program can do for them when in fact they could never print in the darkroom in the first place and now embrace digital as their new crutch and continue to lie to the public by pushing digital prints are fine art. Please, the annoyance needs to cease as well as the lies.

Ilfords new paper is great but I see it as a destruction to fine art photography as now everyone and their brother can go home, download an image to the computer, modify it in Photoshop after a few hours and upload the so called masterpiece to a lab and presto a fiber base fine art print. Total and complete crap! They have a complete lack of craft to a once regarded art that is being annihilated by the digital users.

You done both eh? Well guess what, so have I and I have to say you lying to yourself. It does not take pain to make great prints in Photoshop. Photoshop is not a skill it is a program that is learned and never mastered as you can only go as far as the developers allow you to go.

To make a finely hand crafted print takes years of experience and dedication unlike the fraudulent digital users that lies and tries to tell everyone that they are also fine artist when in fact they are only a fallacy of what they want to be.

Why is it that every single digital photographs tries to convince everyone around that they are indeed photographer making art? Because they know they are full of (FILL IN THE BLANK)…

To quote John Swarkowski

"Occasionally it is decided that tradition should define the work's end result. At this point the tradition dies."

What is the main thing that digital imaging is lacking?

Answer: Quality of the final print.

Now that this option is available to digital users, what advantage have traditional photographers got if the buyer doesn't care how it was created?

If the buyer does care for how it was created and they are told it is a traditionally created print, how will they know for sure? Will they just have to take the photographer's word?

This new paper is the final piece missing from the digital jigsaw and I fail to understand how this will encourage some digital photographers to use other traditional products. If they didn't want to use traditional products when they produced inkjet prints, why would they change now when they have the option of fibre prints.

Peter

Bob Carnie said:

Gibran

You have hit upon an unique aspect of how I approach a print whether it be PS or by hand.
I am 30 years into printing with my hands under an enlarger , using different shapes , contrasts , bla bla bla.
I just started using PS one year ago hands on.*sorry for the pun*.
In the past I would tell my techician how I want the print to look and be frustrated with their approach to the work station.
Kevin who is my partner had a serious illness last summer which forced me to literally get on the computer and work the files myself.
I do not approach an image any different with PS as I would with a traditional approach. I set my density and contrast to a level I like, I then clean the file *dust bust* just like I would clean a negative.
I will set a dodge selection , set a brush size and basically go over the image exactly like I would traditionally.
I the set a burn selection and add density to the image exactly the same way I would to a traditional print.
If I want to diffuse areas I go about it the same way.
In my darkroom traditional,, each print is separated by three filter split printing... * shawdow>midtone> highlight* I have been doing this for 10years now much like what Les Mclean would teach in any of his workshops.
I have found in PS that there are tools to control the shawdows, midtones and highlights.
I do not alter images by cloning and montaging even though I have done this in my past life traditionally and now possible with PS.
* I may but right now I do not.*
I guess what I am trying to say is that PS put in the hands of a traditional printer is very much like a traditional approach. PS was designed by a group of artists with photographic printing as its basic principle.
This new paper is Gallerie grade 4, with an extended red sensitivitey. It is being produced to be used by printers worldwide.
It is not any different than a traditional black and white paper that you and I use each day other than its unique features.

Personally I love printing both ways and will continue to do so for my life.
A small aside which may or may not be relevent to this discussion.
I posted a thread late last week regarding a complete analogue starter kit.
Enlarger, easel, processing reels . Enough to get a young photographer started in 35mm printing.
To this date I have not seen one response to a free start up kit.

Imagine if my offer had been , Scanner, epson printer ect.

Click to expand...

If you'd offered said startup kit to me, I would have taken it. And paid shipping. Just letting you know.

thefizz said:

What is the main thing that digital imaging is lacking?

Answer: Quality of the final print.

Now that this option is available to digital users, what advantage have traditional photographers got if the buyer doesn't care how it was created?

If the buyer does care for how it was created and they are told it is a traditionally created print, how will they know for sure? Will they just have to take the photographer's word?

This new paper is the final piece missing from the digital jigsaw and I fail to understand how this will encourage some digital photographers to use other traditional products. If they didn't want to use traditional products when they produced inkjet prints, why would they change now when they have the option of fibre prints.

Peter

Click to expand...

This is exactly the point as you hit the nail right on the head. This paper will complete destroy traditional photography as we know it. The digital photographer will outright lie by calling his work traditional even though it is not. The problem is that the end buyer will once again be lied to and sold work that is completely fraudulent as in how it is advertised. The art and mastery of photography will be lost, as the masses will embrace the lazy digital world. If this papers dose indeed take off, you will see less and less using film which means less demand = less product = higher cost = film no longer being manufactured which is exactly what the digital corporation want.

This paper will do more harm than good but to many have on blinders and cant see their foot in front of their face. They just don’t get it until it is gone, then as usual they will scream and yell where did it go? We will say, you saw it and did nothing to help stop it.

It really is a sad day for sure…

Maybe it is time to go back to the brush, canvas and oils…

First off let me apologize for not reading the whole thread...I have gone through parts of it. My point of view on the whole thing is that this will be both good for Ilford and also good for silver printing. I am not a spring chicken, I grew up in a world with no digital anything...closing in on forty I have to say! But even so I feel inadequate in truely being able to understand what silver based fiber print is. Don't get me wrong, I love film, have n interest in sitting at a computer and learning photoshop or digital workflow, I just set up my own darkroom this summer and I love developing and working with film. That having been said, what are my options for being able to actually SEE fiber based fine art work? I live maybe 45 minutes from a big city, and at that it is not a super big city. What exposure do I have to other peoples work? To being able to see traditional prints and thus exposure to the work of traditional photographers? Almost nothing, maybe there might be a museum in Richmond, I am not sure. On a day to day basis I see images on the web, my local photo shop now only prints digitally...no longer can I pay locally for a nice traditional lab to print something I took in color for me, they would scan the negative and then print it. I am not sure people who are not into photography would even have a frame of reference for what the heck this disscusion is about. They are used to inkjets. We no longre have a way for traditional prints to be exposed to the public. Its just not common anymore. So I am not worried about this paper, good for them, I won't be using it but I am not interested in digital. But maybe its a good thing for more exposure to traditional fiber prints, for people to be able to see where photography started, keep the traditional alive, if in an incarnation that may be uncomfortable?

Hope this makes sense! Sorry for any spelling mistakes,

Nancy

livemoa said:

To quote John Swarkowski

"Occasionally it is decided that tradition should define the work's end result. At this point the tradition dies."

Click to expand...

Digital imaging exists solely to take market share from traditional photography, and to create an endless rapid cycle of needs and solutions for those who are foolish enough to think that the next camera or computer or program will make up for a lack of art and craft. It is a shimmering wasteland of marketing, technobabble, machinegun snapshooters, and hacks, with a myopic fixation on the process, and has very little to do with photography, except to attempt its destruction. It has no tradition whatsoever.

As we head towards 100 posts, I would be interested to hear Simon's thoughts on the views expressed so far.

Peter