Digital BW, The Print

On 8/14/13 5:48 AM, "Louis de Stoutz" <loudest@...> wrote:

>As I matter of principle, I would like to be able to make a 100% carbon
>pigment print on Arches watercolor paper (and others) that is visually
>neutral.  I appreciate warm prints also.  However, I do like neutral
>prints for many situations, and it's a challenge to make a "neutral"
>print with only carbon pigments.


Let me play devil's advocate here and see if we can't stir the pot a bitŠ


Before digital (BD), NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, was after a "neutral"
print!

Even when using warm tone papers, silver gelatin prints came out green. A
sickly, nasty, repugnant, unacceptable, greeeeen!!!

Never, EVER, "neutral".

Photographers could hardly wait to get those nasty looking green prints
into a toning bath, usually selenium (for a "cool purple sepia" color), in
order to make that green color go away before the photographer threw up.

The goal was either selenium purple or one of hundreds of flavors of
brown/sepia. I don't recall anyone ever seeking "neutral".

So my question is: when and how did "neutral" become the holy grail of B&W
fine art photography?

Just to stir the pot a little moreŠ

I challenge everyone to make three prints of the same image;

One "neutral", one selenium and one brown/sepia. Make all three as
pleasing to yourself as you can.

Then I dare you to tell me you genuinely like the "neutral" print best!

And if by chance you DO like the neutral print best, why weren't you after
that tone when you were printing silver?

If you never printed silver, go away sonny, you bother me!   ;-)



David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@davidkachel.com

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@reddoorfinephotographs.com

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787