Digital BW, The Print

Clayton said that he had created a print on Arches that would not be 
considered to be a "good" print from a modern technical viewpoint by most 
photographers. And that it was similar in a lot of ways to the reproductions 
of the old platinum prints done by the likes of Steiglitz.

I was just at the Getty museum a few days ago and I saw several old platinum 
prints (in real life, no repros) made by Paul Strand. Some of which were 
likely displayed in 291 and printed in Camera Work by Steiglitz himself. I 
had remarked to one of my photo buddies in a similar way to what Clayton had 
said. These prints suffered from technical flaws which we would today deem 
as crappy and/or unacceptable. The prints were dark, grainy and really 
didn't have the deepest blacks I've seen on inkjet prints. Yet some of these 
photos were absolutely stunning!

I saw one where Strand was mimicking some of the impressionist paintings 
that he had liked in a photo. It was blurry and of low contrast, yet it was 
a scene which very much reminded me of something that Monet would have 
painted. Once again I was bowled over by the beauty of this print.

I too am frequently amazed by the amount noise I hear on this forum about 
how this paper or ink is good or no good because it does or doesn't provide 
some quantitative measure of density. It is all about the image, and whether 
or not it moves the viewer, and nothing else (IMHO).

Nicely put Derek.
It's the image that we first notice, or grabs us. Only then, the  
technical characteristics might be noticed by a few viewers.
Cheers,

John Toles
www.dragonflyprinting.com

On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Derek Ealy wrote:

> I too am frequently amazed by the amount noise I hear on this forum  
> about
> how this paper or ink is good or no good because it does or doesn't  
> provide
> some quantitative measure of density. It is all about the image,  
> and whether
> or not it moves the viewer, and nothing else (IMHO).
>



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

Good points Derek. My feelings as well.

While I like deep blacks as well as anyone, they aren,t necessarily 
called for on every image. IMHO.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Ealy" 
<dealy663@h...> wrote:
> Clayton said that he had created a print on Arches that would not 
be 
> considered to be a "good" print from a modern technical viewpoint 
by most 
> photographers. And that it was similar in a lot of ways to the 
reproductions 
> of the old platinum prints done by the likes of Steiglitz.
> 
> I was just at the Getty museum a few days ago and I saw several 
old platinum 
> prints (in real life, no repros) made by Paul Strand. Some of 
which were 
> likely displayed in 291 and printed in Camera Work by Steiglitz 
himself. I 
> had remarked to one of my photo buddies in a similar way to what 
Clayton had 
> said. These prints suffered from technical flaws which we would 
today deem 
> as crappy and/or unacceptable. The prints were dark, grainy and 
really 
> didn't have the deepest blacks I've seen on inkjet prints. Yet 
some of these 
> photos were absolutely stunning!
> 
> I saw one where Strand was mimicking some of the impressionist 
paintings 
> that he had liked in a photo. It was blurry and of low contrast, 
yet it was 
> a scene which very much reminded me of something that Monet would 
have 
> painted. Once again I was bowled over by the beauty of this print.
> 
> I too am frequently amazed by the amount noise I hear on this 
forum about 
> how this paper or ink is good or no good because it does or 
doesn't provide 
> some quantitative measure of density. It is all about the image, 
and whether 
> or not it moves the viewer, and nothing else (IMHO).