Digital BW, The Print

>
> 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
>

>
> I don't have much more useful thoughts to add to this discussion, so I will step back into my cave (or is it the well?).
> 
> Full disclosure, however, is necessary. I hardly ever use(d) ABW. My prefered method is to use a custom concoction of Image Specialist K3 and color (including blue) and GLOP inks, driven by QTR. I can do things with this inkset that I find aesthetically pleasing, and best of all I can turn print hue (limited range of a and b) on a dime. But, I have seen too many stunning ABW prints to be dismissive of, or derisive towards ABW prints.
> 
> Respectfully.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ClaytonJ" <cj@> 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
> >
>

-----Original Message-----
From: piezobw <jon@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 10:35 am
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Reply to Jon and Tyler re ABW - Was Aard. Tests


  
    
                  
Shilesh,

I can't understand how alternative processes are making you and Clayton feel the need to defend your work. Paul recently commented on his position that "100% carbon is where B&W fine art should be". Does his position make you feel that you're not a fine art b&w photographer because you use color? Or is it the way it is typed that makes a difference here? 

I don't understand all this defensiveness over techniques. I may be missing some etiquette that is being enforced here. For that, I can only apologize for not using proper etiquette. But, there really is not that much difference between Paul's position that longevity of pure carbon is most critical, and mine of image fidelity is most critical.

Jon Cone
Piezography

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "shileshjani" <janishilesh@...> wrote:
>
> I don't have much more useful thoughts to add to this discussion, so I will step back into my cave (or is it the well?).
> 
> Full disclosure, however, is necessary. I hardly ever use(d) ABW. My prefered method is to use a custom concoction of Image Specialist K3 and color (including blue) and GLOP inks, driven by QTR. I can do things with this inkset that I find aesthetically pleasing, and best of all I can turn print hue (limited range of a and b) on a dime. But, I have seen too many stunning ABW prints to be dismissive of, or derisive towards ABW prints.
> 
> Respectfully.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ClaytonJ" <cj@> 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]

>
> Shilesh,
> 
> I can't understand how alternative processes are making you and Clayton feel the need to defend your work. Paul recently commented on his position that "100% carbon is where B&W fine art should be". Does his position make you feel that you're not a fine art b&w photographer because you use color? Or is it the way it is typed that makes a difference here? 
> 
> I don't understand all this defensiveness over techniques. I may be missing some etiquette that is being enforced here. For that, I can only apologize for not using proper etiquette. But, there really is not that much difference between Paul's position that longevity of pure carbon is most critical, and mine of image fidelity is most critical.
> 
> Jon Cone
> Piezography
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "shileshjani" <janishilesh@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't have much more useful thoughts to add to this discussion, so I will step back into my cave (or is it the well?).
> > 
> > Full disclosure, however, is necessary. I hardly ever use(d) ABW. My prefered method is to use a custom concoction of Image Specialist K3 and color (including blue) and GLOP inks, driven by QTR. I can do things with this inkset that I find aesthetically pleasing, and best of all I can turn print hue (limited range of a and b) on a dime. But, I have seen too many stunning ABW prints to be dismissive of, or derisive towards ABW prints.
> > 
> > Respectfully.
> > 
> > Shilesh
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ClaytonJ" <cj@> 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
> > >
> >
>

> My response was to the nature of some of your remarks which can be easily interpreted 
> as put downs (intended that way or not), which I think hurts this forum, 
> and to Tyler's use of the word "sucks", as a complete dismissal of a widely 
> popular process (which is very unlike his normally respectful tone here).
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton

>
> On 4/9/2010 9:43 AM, pdesmidt tds.net wrote:
> > Saying that someone else's methodology "sucks" will cause nothing good.
> > Instead, why not say what works for you and why you like it and leave the
> > disparagement at the door?
> >    
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Dana
>

>
> Recently on a variety of enthusiast forums, I've seen people scornfully
> dismiss those who use digital cameras, computer printers, photoshop, color
> film, roll film, sheet film, Velvia, t-grained film, Xtol, a photo enlarger,
> digital negatives, in-camera negatives, flatbed scanners, Nikon film
> scanners, and on-and-on.  "I'm the best!  If you don't do what I do, then
> you suck!" What is up with all the self-aggrandizement and hate?
> 
> Saying that someone else's methodology "sucks" will cause nothing good.
> Instead, why not say what works for you and why you like it and leave the
> disparagement at the door?  For example, for awhile I used PMK, a film
> developer that has a fervent following.  I used it for about a year, and I
> came to the conclusion that with my methods and materials, it didn't give me
> the results I wanted.  Mainly, I didn't like the highlight compression it
> gave me on variable contrast papers. If I wanted to mimic the behavior I've
> been witnessing, I should've found a forum where Gordon Hutchings, the
> formulator of PMK, or at the least a forum some of his followers frequent,
> and started spouting off about how PMK is crap.  The only things that
> would've accomplished would be  to create bad feelings, undermine the
> helpful spirit of community that the best forums have, and display what a
> tool I was.  Just because I didn't get good results with PMK doesn't mean
> it's a bad developer, and I have no doubt that some people get great results
> with it.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:28 PM, piezobw wrote:

> Is there a poll that has been taken to see the different techniques  
> being practiced, or does one assume that everyone is using either  
> ABW or BO?

On 09/04/10 8:52 PM, "CorrPro96@..." <CorrPro96@...> wrote:

> A few years back, Amadou Diallo invited a bunch of us during the Photo Expo
>  here in NYC to a "Print-Off" of one of his images. It was there that I had
> the  pleasure of meting a number of the members of this forum and seeing
> the  results... the printmaking of as many participants as were present, plus
> one. The one was Tyler's print, sent to add his input. Only one of the
> prints  was an ABW... all the others were from dedicated monochrome printers.
> Looking at  the many versions of the same image, I felt comfortable that my
> prints were  holding their own, I was surprised and impressed at the quality
> of the lone ABW  print and found myself learning from the interpretations of
> the image in the  other prints shown.
> When I saw Tyler's print I remember suddenly having the feeling that my
> prints sucked. They were fine up to that point, but suddenly looked lifeless.
> The detail was there, the feeling was not. We all spent quite a bit of time
>  discussing Tyler's print, examining the tonal range, the tonal
> contrasts....  everything. I don't know what the others thought about
> comparing their 
> work to  that print, but that was the beginning of my communicating directly
> with Tyler,  asking him about his methodology and trying to find out what
> the "secret sauce"  was. It wasn't the "sauce"... it was his vision, his
> previsualization realized  that was the difference.
>  
> Gentlemen..... we are all in pursuit of the holy grail in our work, and I
> doubt if there are any 3 of us who use the same stuff and work the same way.
> I  am now printing with a 4880 and ABW, a 7600 with Special Edition K7 and
> a Z3100,  all making B/W prints. I find the image to be the challenge and I
> will use  whichever methodology I have, that brings the image to life....
> that gives me  the interpretation I want to enjoy.
>  
> We are sometimes our worst critics; we tear up a lot of good expensive ink
> and paper.... because 'it sucks', just because we are trying to take our
> printmaking to a higher level. We should not take offense in this effort,
> when  someone is ahead of the curve and trash talks what is going on.
> Somewhere 
> down  the line, we ourselves will move to a new plateau and feel exactly
> the same way  about what we thought was acceptable a few moons ago.