Digital BW, The Print

Clayton,
I do not take part in the conversations here very often (because half the
time I do not understand what is going on!) but as Shilesh knows, I am a
regular in the Print Exchanges, so I do like to print.

A mocking tone is typically taken by insecure people, who cannot prove that
their ideas are better in any scientific way, and thus resort to sneers and
innuendo. This sort of behaviour is prevalent to a much greater degree in
the art world, so this is not surprising that it should occur here - and I
should mention here that I also have been collecting art for the last 20
years, and my views enumerated here are more as a collector rather than a
producer.

I also have a collection of over 1000 prints accumulated only from taking
part in various print exchanges, where I have seen and studied every
conceivable methodology of the last 5 years. I must say that I really cannot
make out any tangible difference, either in the inks, printing technology or
photographic equipment used. I just think that as some people are innately
better photographers, some are innately better printers, and that is all
there is to it.

Cheers
Jayanand



On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:07 AM, ClaytonJ <cj@cjcom.net> wrote:

>
>
> Hello Jon and Tyler,
>
> Shilesh beat me to it and spoke very eloquently in defense of ABW, saying
> many things I wanted to say. I can't improve on his words, but I do have a
> few additional thoughts to add.
>
> As you probably know, I am an ardent supporter of the ABW system. While I
> don't disagree with the things you said about other ink systems (3 vs 6
> shades of black, etc), I do take issue with the manner and tone which were
> used to "put down" ABW, and, by inference, it's users. Jon, you said "some
> people can't tell the difference". I don't know exactly what was meant by
> that (whether some peoples' eyes can't discern subtle differences, or
> whether their artistic sensibilities are incapable), but it came across as a
> very thinly disguised put down, implying some sort of lower artistic life
> form. And Tyler, with all due respect that I have for you and your talents,
> ABW doesn't "suck". As Shilesh stated so well, ABW has it's own strengths
> and, in the right hands and with care, it CAN produce very beautiful prints.
> Finally, somewhere in those posts the term "good enough" popped up a couple
> of times, used again with faint derision implying that some people's
> standards aren't "high enough". Some may have lower standards than others,
> but that should not necessarily be associated with using ABW. As Shilesh
> pointed out, ABW has it's own strengths and many very discerning
> photographers choose to use it.
>
> The point of the above is that it all smacks of an elitist mind set that
> has no place in this forum. This forum has always been a welcoming and
> friendly place for all photographers interested in BW printing, regardless
> of where they are on the experience scale. A Place where anyone can find
> friendly support and encouragement. It has, against heavy odds, managed to
> survive all these years and provide both a place for beginners and cutting
> edge practitioners alike, while avoiding sinking into a cesspool of rancor
> that has been the fate of so many other forums. If this forum takes on an
> elitist tone it will destroy it. That is my main concern.
>
> You may recall that around eight years ago I became an outspoken defender
> of single ink BO printing. In those days when the 1280 was king, the
> technical bar to fine prints was extremely high and the landscape was
> littered with the corpses (so to speak) of those who tried and quit in
> frustration. I was one of those frustrated ones, and found BO printing to be
> a welcome sanctuary which allowed a modicum of success which kept me from
> quitting altogether. When I began promoting it as a good approach for
> beginners having difficulty it was at first met with derision. But BO's user
> base grew and persevered and gradually the technique became accepted as
> another viable alternative. The point here is that BO provided a lower entry
> bar into BW printing and the industry has benefited from it. There are quite
> a few names in the forum today, still spending money on supplies I assume,
> who initially got a foothold with BO.
>
> I feel that ABW is playing a similar role today. At the very least it
> provides an out-of-the-box solution that allows anyone to make at least
> decent BW prints right away - a secure foothold in an otherwise very
> difficult playing field, and in good careful hands, very fine prints. I
> think the effects of this cannot be underestimated. Consider that we are all
> benefiting from the ongoing BW R&D by printer, paper, and ink manufacturers.
> This could not happen without a large user base to buy the products and
> finance the whole thing. K3, color and BW, has helped increase the fine art
> user base enormously.
>
> ABW was introduced in the summer of 2005 and has had a huge impact on the
> BW marketplace. Evidence of this can be seen right here in this forum. If
> you examine the Message History on the forum home page you'll see that
> before that summer, monthly message traffic was routinely over 1200,
> sometimes 1500 or more, and once over 2100. By September the numbers began
> to fall off, and beginning in April 2006 it remained below 1000. The average
> for the first 8 months of 2005 was 1750/mo. For all of 2006 it was 882/mo,
> down 50%. In 2009 it was 327. The nature of the messages changed as well.
> Before K3, a dominant theme was anguish and frustration centered mostly
> around dealing with clogs and struggling to get good results using various
> curves, RIPs and workflows. Now there is more discussion re the attributes
> of various papers and inks, and there is a marked lack of anguish,
> frustration and struggle. People just don't have as many problems as before.
> ABW has made a huge impact.
>
> Jon, you also said "Photographers who are really critical about the visual
> representation of their work will see higher quality in a Piezography K6 or
> K7 print..." Perhaps so, but one thing that has been omitted from the
> discussion, which Shilesh touched on, is the skill of the user. I have seen
> prints made with your systems that were knock dead gorgeous. I have also
> seen some that were just so-so (and I'm being polite). Using 6 or 7 blacks
> will not automatically result in a better print. As Shilesh pointed out, in
> skilled hands ABW, and even the various flavors of Eboni-only, can produce
> outstanding results (and isn't it interesting that eight years later as
> printer technology has evolved to 1.5 Pl droplets, several BO flavors have
> risen to higher positions in the pecking order, supported by none other than
> our BW ink spiritual guide Paul Roark).
>
> As for "good enough" and "Photographers who are really critical...", these
> two are not so far apart as may be implied. Even back in the Dark Ages there
> were those who espoused the full blown Adams Zone approach and those who
> found a more comfortable home in various "Modified Zone System" approaches.
> Do you remember those raging debates? Do you remember the adolescent elitism
> that clothed many of them (REAL photographers use...)? Many ABW users are
> extremely critical in their work (and this includes the skills at working up
> images in Photoshop, which makes a huge difference in the print quality,
> regardles of inks) and they put a lot of effort into getting the best out of
> the system. I find that with careful attention and exacting standards, ABW
> makes prints that are, as Shilesh says, far more than "good enough". To
> state that ABW cannot make outstanding prints is simply not true, and to
> imply that ABW users are in some way inferior beings who "can't tell the
> difference" is an insult (I hope you didn't mean those remarks that way, but
> they certainly can be interpreted as such, which is my main point - please
> consider your words more carefully).
>
> I spent over 20 years doing serious darkroom work and I know very well what
> a good print looks like. Could my ABW prints be better with another system?
> Possibly. But my prints are good to the point that for me it's not worth 40%
> more effort and bother in order to get 3% greater quality. I admire those
> who are willing to go the extra mile, I think it's great. But everyone has
> to decide where their cost/benefit point is, and I hope that peoples'
> choices will be respected here. If this becomes an elitist forum then
> beginners will feel intimidated and unwelcome. My focus with my web site and
> articles all these years has been to encourage and help people get started,
> and it's hard to sit here and read things that undermine those ideals.
>
> Jon, I really liked what you had to say about not getting into the rut of
> thinking that ink printing is inferior to emulsion printing. I agree and
> have thought that all along. I've said numerous times here over the years
> that we ought to be emphasizing the "ink" part of what we do. Ink prints are
> a different medium with their own kind of beauty and we ought to be
> capitalizing on that. But people didn't want to hear it and it's been very
> frustrating to see that attitude continue. I'm glad you said it, maybe
> people will listen to you. You also pointed out that the quality of the
> print sometimes doesn't mesh with the quality of the art (Cindy Sherman, et
> al.). I couldn't agree more, and all the more reason I hope you will think
> about these things and be more thoughtful in how you phrase your commentary.
> Back in the Zone wars I used to point out that Edward Weston didn't use the
> Zone System but everyone seemed to think his prints were ok. Just think of
> ABW as Edward's light bulb <g>. In careful hands a light bulb did quite
> nicely.
>
> As for the longevity issue, of course there's no question pure carbon is
> better. But consider that, according to Wilhelm, ABW on a good paper (such
> as VFA which is my favorite) ranges from 112 years unframed to 125 under UV
> glass to >200 years in dark storage. How much is enough? Everyone has to
> decide for themselves. Cindy Sherman goes for C-prints...go figure (and BTW,
> I understand the difference between archival and fade resistance, and yes
> I'm an Aardenburg member). What good is it if inks will last 400 years
> rather than 125 if the coating disintegrates after 80? We don't know that
> yet, of course, which is why for now I accept ABW's longevity. And I'm up
> front with my customers about it. No one yet has decided not to purchase
> because the prints may last "only" 125 years. Most don't even care. They
> just like the print and want to frame it on the wall. Anyway, maybe art
> shouldn't last so long. Maybe it should self-destruct in order to make room
> for new art...(just a little spice for the soup <g>).
>
> A final thought: Epson supplies us with the best printers and some of the
> best papers (the new Hot Press Natural looks like a winner) and inks. Their
> ABW system has revolutionized the BW marketplace and has helped create the
> financial base that propels the further evolution of the technology (you,
> too, are benefitting from the user base). We all ought to kiss Epson's feet
> (so to speak) for what they have done for us (it's too bad we ordinary
> mortals are dependant on corporate technology, but it's the reality we must
> live with). After struggling with various approaches for several years -
> clogs, leaky carts, bad chips, ink blending, syringes and countless hours
> with curves (and muttering more naughty words than I like to admit), ABW was
> a Godsend for me. It fits my busy schedule, my finances and my (non)
> technical inclinations. I'm producing beautiful prints that people pay money
> for and I'm free to concentrate on the photography (oh yes, remember that
> part?). I, for one, am very grateful.
>
> So, I am asking the same thing here as I did eight years ago for BO: Please
> accept ABW as a valid and viable approach to fine art BW printing. Don't
> hesitate to extol the virtues of other systems if you wish, but acknowledge
> ABW's strengths and give it the respect it deserves. Thanks very much.
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> I-Trak 2.1 http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm
>
>  
>


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