Digital BW, The Print

I couldn't agree with Paul more. What ends up on the wall starts with the camera image and ends with the paper. That's a lot of latitude. Tunnel vision is rarely a desirable trait.

Roger

On Apr 3, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Paul wrote:

> The appropriate scope of this forum is certainly an issue about which reasonable people may differ. I thought the focus stacking workflow was on the fringe, so I tried to label is as such. However, the appropriate scope for "digital B&W printing" does have some uncertainty in it. There is certainly more to B&W printing than ink. And it is worth discussing this issue.
> 
> Relevant to this is Ernst's initial reaction:
> 
> > Group f/64 must be turning simultaneously in their grave :-)
> 
> That B&W photographers' group was famous for their efforts to have virtually everything in focus. Given the influence of that group's work and that approach on current B&W aesthetics, mine included, the focus stacking and ease with which we can now accomplish that seemed to have a sufficient nexus with digital B&W printing to be of interest to more than a few members of this group. 
> 
> In a similar vein, Roy and I have recently discussed what topics would be of most interest to those who join us in our summer High Sierra workshop. Obviously we're most knowledgeable about specific B&W technical topics. However, while we will clearly cover ink and QTR issues, some of the highest interest is with respect to digital processing. This is very often as applicable to color as B&W. However, the bottom line is that the topics have wide appeal.
> 
> The truth is, as reflected in the number of posts on this forum over the years, the mysteries of digital B&W printing have largely been answered. We will continue to learn more about the medium and continue to refine it, but the inkjet market is much more mature than it was when this forum was started. We can debate the advantages of having more gray channels than the K3 approach, but the market has largely spoken. Those of us who pursue the dedicated B&W inksets are most like the "alternative process" wet darkroom types at this point. That's fine with me, but there is a rather unique pool of talent and community of interest here that probably also includes those things that go into making what we think of as a fine B&W print.
> 
> Framing and material that go into that end of the work are illustrative of the topics that have been very useful but not directly part of B&W printing.
> 
> On the digital capture front, methods of RGB to grayscale conversion are often issues that come up.
> 
> There's more to it than inks and rips. What the limits are, however, is uncertain and worth discussing. Do we need a new forum? I hope not.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]