Digital BW, The Print

I appreciate your comments and the way you said it. 

The awkward thing was returning to a forum that once had a majority of experimental printmakers - only to find that those who experiment are the minority, and some using the out of the box experience are terribly terribly protective of it. 

I think if I had lurked first, I would have seen the BO and not have been caught so off guard by the notion that that is now considered to be experimental printmaking.

I'm still going to hang out here. It's like a rowdy pub, and who doesn't love a bit of a pub now and then...

And, I might load up the BO idea to see how I can contribute something here. At the least, its putting a couple inks where they don't belong.  :)  And I do like experimenting.

What about UltraTone?? - the idea of using colors in some positions and shades in others. Is that still practiced here? Sundance and MediaStreet had systems like that too at one time.

Is there a poll that has been taken to see the different techniques being practiced, or does one assume that everyone is using either ABW or BO?

thanks...


Jon Cone
Piezography






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdesmidt tds.net" <pdesmidt@...> wrote:
>
> Recently on a variety of enthusiast forums, I've seen people scornfully
> dismiss those who use digital cameras, computer printers, photoshop, color
> film, roll film, sheet film, Velvia, t-grained film, Xtol, a photo enlarger,
> digital negatives, in-camera negatives, flatbed scanners, Nikon film
> scanners, and on-and-on.  "I'm the best!  If you don't do what I do, then
> you suck!" What is up with all the self-aggrandizement and hate?
> 
> Saying that someone else's methodology "sucks" will cause nothing good.
> Instead, why not say what works for you and why you like it and leave the
> disparagement at the door?  For example, for awhile I used PMK, a film
> developer that has a fervent following.  I used it for about a year, and I
> came to the conclusion that with my methods and materials, it didn't give me
> the results I wanted.  Mainly, I didn't like the highlight compression it
> gave me on variable contrast papers. If I wanted to mimic the behavior I've
> been witnessing, I should've found a forum where Gordon Hutchings, the
> formulator of PMK, or at the least a forum some of his followers frequent,
> and started spouting off about how PMK is crap.  The only things that
> would've accomplished would be  to create bad feelings, undermine the
> helpful spirit of community that the best forums have, and display what a
> tool I was.  Just because I didn't get good results with PMK doesn't mean
> it's a bad developer, and I have no doubt that some people get great results
> with it.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>