Digital BW, The Print

shileshjani wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I ask this respectfully: Are you going to participate meaningfully in this rather interesting discussion, and do some bruising of your own? Or act as a cheerleader on the sidelines, and not risk getting bruised? If letter, let see you donned in a short skirt, waving pomppoms, please.
>
> Shilesh
>   

Doesn't seem terribly respectful, but that's OK.

I know enough to know that I'm not at Tyler's level. I'm certainly not 
at Jon's level. I don't have the resources or the time, or quite 
frankly, the talent.

But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize it in them. I had the great 
good fortune of spending a few hours with Mr. Boley last summer. He 
showed me a number of prints. I was just amazed. I've never seen B&W 
prints like that. Over the years I've held quite a few prints in my 
hands to see them without glass -- old masters like Adams and Weston, 
current masters too many to mention. Something to shoot for in my own 
prints even if I'll never get close. But I've never seen any as 
beautiful as Tyler's. I don't have the vocabulary to describe it. He's 
able to make the print subservient to the image, yet support the image 
in a way that makes it just shine. But in the way that individual image 
needs to shine. It'll grab your attention from across the room, yet 
whisper in your ear at the same time. Incredible.

So am I going to enter the discussion? Probably not. I don't have 
anything to say that Tyler and Jon can't say better than I can, and with 
more authority. I've got plenty of bruises already -- I was one of the 
first people to get Piezotones running on a 7600, using StudioPrint. I'm 
just sayin' that bruising is not an issue, and that I know where these 
guys are coming from, and what they are trying to do. I'll always 
support people trying to push and extend in a fight for excellence. 
Those are the people from whom we get progress.

You don't like it? Too bad. Find a way to adjust.
--
Bruce Watson