Digital BW, The Print

Went to a local art fair where a photographer had some nice b&w fine 
art landscape prints for sale. He was making sure everyone knew they 
weren't digital prints, kind of like a guy telling a girl he met he's 
disease free. What's with this? Perhaps its some kind of collector 
thing; that is, with digital you can just push a button and out comes 
an exact duplicate. I got the feeling the comments had more to do 
with investment potential than asthetics. Still, not a valid reason 
to bash digital b&w.

In the next booth were some large color prints made from 4x5 
negatives. The negatives had been digitally scanned then digitally 
printed on a LaserLight printer. These images had been digitally 
manipulated (dodged, burned, levels tweaked, curves tweaked, color 
balanced and spotted) and they looked absolutely stunning! I've been 
doing this long enough to tell when digital tweaking has been done 
(actually, not all the time if done subtly enough), just like I can 
tell when dodging and burning has been done in a conventional print. 
I can't see that its been done but I know it had to have been done 
for technical reasons. But once again, the salesman in this case was 
telling everyone these weren't digital prints. I guess since the 
image came from a negative and was printed on photographic paper that 
the salesman felt the photographs had not been stricken by the 
digital curse. The good news is that I didn't say anything so 
everyone could enjoy the "non-digital" photos in peace. But still, in 
this case all the photographer would have to do is push a button and 
out comes and exact duplicate.

Perhaps that's the definition of a digital print: If you can push a 
button and out comes an exact duplicate, then the print is digital.

"Digit" means finger. (Latin - "digitus")

So if the first photographer used his fingers while
working in his darkroom he's mis-representing his work.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sanfo2003" 
<SandyCornelius@c...> wrote:
> Went to a local art fair where a photographer had some nice b&w 
fine 
> art landscape prints for sale. He was making sure everyone knew 
they 
> weren't digital prints, <clip>

I have sold my work at Art Fairs for about 20 years now. I also sell 
through galleries, but the Art Fair venue is by far the more 
lucrative for me. I do traditional black & white landscape silver 
gelatin photographs from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives much like the man in 
your story. I have the equipment to do digital printing, but for me, 
right now, that is not what I wish to do.

Back in the 80's when I started marketing my work, there were two 
raging issues for photographers doing Art Fairs. 1.) Do you do your 
own printing or do you have it done by someone else? 2.) Do you 
sell "original" prints or "mechanically reproduced" prints?

As my brother tells me, I have a single car garage operation. I do 
everything. I enjoy the darkroom work as much as the image making 
(well almost). I believe with black & white photographs, the creative 
effort doesn't stop when I click the shutter. Color is a little bit 
different. At Art Fairs, many, many people ask me if I make my own 
prints. Why it matters, I don't know, but it does. When I tell 
them "I do everything", it is obvious that that impresses them. What 
if I didn't? Well, they would probably buy them anyway if they liked 
what they saw.

Issue #2 is different. There are quite a few Art Fairs (most of the 
better ones) that will not allow Artist's (of any kind) to 
sell "mechanical reproductions". Some allow it, but it can only be a 
small percentage of your display. When digital printmaking became 
more mainstream a few years ago, the Art Fair Directors usually 
proclaimed the processes to be a "mechanical reproduction". Most have 
now adjusted that position and many have added categories 
for "Computer Art" or "Digital Art". You have to look at each show's 
rules to find out how what qualifies as what. Obviously, such art can 
be photographically based or not.

I don't know why the Black & White guy in your story was so defensive 
about his work not being digital and I don't know why the color guy 
was less than candid about his process. Most people ask because they 
can't tell and are interested. When I am asked if my work is digital 
I simply say "No. These are traditional silver gelatin photographs." 
And my intent is to say it in a way that is non-judgmental. I do what 
I do because that's the way I want to do it. If I wanted to do 
digital printing ( and I am tempted because I have made some really 
nice inkjet prints) I would do it and present it with the same pride 
as my other work.

The facts as I see them are:
1. Digital printing is going to become the most common form of 
photographic print, for both black & white and color.
2. Traditional photographic processes are not going to die but will 
become less common.
3. People will argue the merits or lack thereof of digital printing 
as compared to other processes until the end of time. No one will win 
or lose these arguments because there is no right or wrong about it.
4. When I buy Art, I buy what I like. I expect the Artist to be 
honest with me about his process. If he chooses not to divulge a 
guarded secret process, that's OK but I don't expect him to lie or 
deceive me. If I need to take precautions to protect or preserve the 
work I expect him to tell me so.
5. The bottom line is this. If the Art is good, It's good. If it's 
bad, It's bad. How it is made or what it is made of isn't going to 
change that.

By the way, what was the question? Oh, yes, "When is a print a 
Digital Print." Well, if you don't know you're on the wrong list.

Jerome

http://www.jeromehawkins.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sanfo2003" 
<SandyCornelius@c...> wrote:
> Went to a local art fair where a photographer had some nice b&w 
fine 
> art landscape prints for sale. He was making sure everyone knew 
they 
> weren't digital prints, <clip>

I have sold my work at Art Fairs for about 20 years now. I also sell 
through galleries, but the Art Fair venue is by far the more 
lucrative for me. I do traditional black & white landscape silver 
gelatin photographs from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives much like the man in 
your story. I have the equipment to do digital printing, but for me, 
right now, that is not what I wish to do.

Back in the 80's when I started marketing my work, there were two 
raging issues for photographers doing Art Fairs. 1.) Do you do your 
own printing or do you have it done by someone else? 2.) Do you 
sell "original" prints or "mechanically reproduced" prints?

As my brother tells me, I have a single car garage operation. I do 
everything. I enjoy the darkroom work as much as the image making 
(well almost). I believe with black & white photographs, the creative 
effort doesn't stop when I click the shutter. Color is a little bit 
different. At Art Fairs, many, many people ask me if I make my own 
prints. Why it matters, I don't know, but it does. When I tell 
them "I do everything", it is obvious that that impresses them. What 
if I didn't? Well, they would probably buy them anyway if they liked 
what they saw.

Issue #2 is different. There are quite a few Art Fairs (most of the 
better ones) that will not allow Artist's (of any kind) to 
sell "mechanical reproductions". Some allow it, but it can only be a 
small percentage of your display. When digital printmaking became 
more mainstream a few years ago, the Art Fair Directors usually 
proclaimed the processes to be a "mechanical reproduction". Most have 
now adjusted that position and many have added categories 
for "Computer Art" or "Digital Art". You have to look at each show's 
rules to find out how what qualifies as what. Obviously, such art can 
be photographically based or not.

I don't know why the Black & White guy in your story was so defensive 
about his work not being digital and I don't know why the color guy 
was less than candid about his process. Most people ask because they 
can't tell and are interested. When I am asked if my work is digital 
I simply say "No. These are traditional silver gelatin photographs." 
And my intent is to say it in a way that is non-judgmental. I do what 
I do because that's the way I want to do it. If I wanted to do 
digital printing ( and I am tempted because I have made some really 
nice inkjet prints) I would do it and present it with the same pride 
as my other work.

The facts as I see them are:
1. Digital printing is going to become the most common form of 
photographic print, for both black & white and color.
2. Traditional photographic processes are not going to die but will 
become less common.
3. People will argue the merits or lack thereof of digital printing 
as compared to other processes until the end of time. No one will win 
or lose these arguments because there is no right or wrong about it.
4. When I buy Art, I buy what I like. I expect the Artist to be 
honest with me about his process. If he chooses not to divulge a 
guarded secret process, that's OK but I don't expect him to lie or 
deceive me. If I need to take precautions to protect or preserve the 
work I expect him to tell me so.
5. The bottom line is this. If the Art is good, It's good. If it's 
bad, It's bad. How it is made or what it is made of isn't going to 
change that.

By the way, what was the question? Oh, yes, "When is a print a 
Digital Print." Well, if you don't know you're on the wrong list.

Jerome

http://www.jeromehawkins.com