A reminder---Photovision Magazine

I realize that at times we get busy and forget things. I am not here

to win popularity contests and my only interest is in the

continuation of our methods and products. For that reason, I copied

and ammended a post that I made to the printing and finishing format

recently. I ask each of you to carefully consider this. I know that

we share a common interest and passion. This is not a time for

contention or of egocentric statements of views...this is a time to

come together on a vital matter.

 

As a further endorsement and reminder to those of us who are engaged

in traditional (film based) photography, Steve Anchell is really in

need of our support of his publication. By support, I mean

subscriptions folks. The reason that subscriptions are so vitally

important is that his magazine is the only remaining publication

solely dedicated to the medium that you and I enjoy and work in.

Additionally his advertisers are not under any illusions about where

his readership exists. Therefore his magazine and it's subscription

base indicates to the manufacturers that we are a vital and sizeable

force that needs to be recognized.

 

 

If his magazine is forced to include digital or if it fails because

of the lack or our support, then the manufacturers will think that

film demand truly is dying and our materials will dry up.

 

 

Do you remember Kodak Super XX, Kodak Elite, or the old Zone VI

Brilliant, are you aware of the decision Kodak recently made to

discontinue grade 3 Azo (until Michael Smith saved it...for now), are

you aware that Ilford recently publically stated that they could

not "hand on heart" swear that they would ever develop another black

and white emulsion? This is a time for those of us who work in film

based photography to come together; for all of us to combine our

forces. We will either come together in this matter or suffer the

loss of our materials alone.

 

 

I heard from a photographer in Jacksonville, Fla last week, he can

not get Rodinal in that city. I no longer have a camera store

stocking selenium toner, or anything other then RC paper (in 8X10 or

11X14 sizes) in my city. I have heard the same stories from Atlanta,

Ga., Kansas City, Mo., Denver, Colorado and the list goes on and on.

You get the picture folks, we are in the wee hours of a deep and

darkening twilight. We are the only ones that can raise the sun

another day.

 

 

The best place for our traditional film based community to come

together is with a subscription to PhotoVision Magazine. Get online,

pick up the phone, spend the seven cents a day that it costs to

subscribe to this fine and much needed publication. How many times do

each of us use another sheet of 8X10 paper to get our test exposure

nailed down? That is the cost of this magazine...please think about

it (the cost is not much and yet it is so vitally important). I have

no personal financial interest in Steve Anchell's PhotoVision

magazine. I do have the Courage of my Convictions. I hope that for

all of our sake that I do not stand alone.

 

-- donald miller , July 08, 2003; 10:04 A.M. Eastern

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

 

egads donald, that had me on my feet with goosebumps. this is the

website

 

http://www.photovisionmagazine.com

 

 

correct?

 

-- Will Coveleskie , July 08, 2003; 02:39 P.M. Eastern

"The best place for our traditional film based community to come

together is with a subscription to PhotoVision Magazine"

 

Has it improved? I supported it for a year with a subscription, but I don't think I even read the last two issues. It had got boring.

I can not support any photography magazine which allows articles about these new-fangled "Dry Plates." What was good enough for Brady and O'Sullivan should be good enough for everyone.

Sorry Donald:

 

Film manufactures don't review circulation figures from magazines to determine their product portfolio... they review sales figures. The only way to save products is to buy and use them. Better to spend the money on more film and paper. But the simple fact is that more products will be discontinued. That forces people to buy and use remaining products. Hopefully, an equilibrium will be achieved where a modest number of traditional film products remain available.

I bought one edition off the shelf - it was a good read and contained a portfolio by Charles Cramer - a pioneer in the application of digital printing technology. Imagine my surprise to later read a seemingly endless barrage from Mr. Anchell bashing and condemning this same technology over and over ad nauseum.<br>

Sheesh... to me this is about making images and prints. Technology will always evolve and anyone is free to choose what works best for them. No offence, but what does one gain from imposing an arbitrary limitation on their creative options?<br>

I don't mind good content about traditional methods - I use plenty of them myself, but a publication which places more importance on the means (tools, techniques) than the goal (making prints) misses the mark for me. I'm not in it for the smelly chemicals or for the screen glare - I'm in it to create expressive images and I'll use what works best. I don't need to hear gospel about one method or another. I want an objective discussion of the art and techniques associated with my craft. Anything declaring off the bat a religious attitude on any matter loses my support.

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

For those of you who base your present reality on the basis of some memory of what may have been are failing to give this publication a fair shake, more importantly you are selling your life's experiences short. I encourage you to read the latest issue. I believe that if you read it thoroughly you may be pleasantly surprised. The article on green tea as a developer source should be enough to encourage you to read the latest issue. I would also suggest that you read Steve's message from the editor. Give him the benefit of your wishes and views. This would benefit us all unless, of course, you are firmly entrenched in the past.

The only "photo" magazines I seem to read these days are Blindspot (usually 3 or 4 issues out of 4 a year seem worthwhile - last one had Nicholas Nixon' Boston pix and Elger Essers landscapes, which made it worthwhile for me); Aperture (maybe 2 out of 4 issues, but I just check it on the newstand now - the good issue usually comes the one after my subscription which included 3 weird ones, ends...) Maybe the newly revived Doubletake, although it's getting a bit predictable and I check PhotoTechniques for any technical articles - like the recent one on the difference between the "new" and "old" Kodak emulsions.

 

I don't think I'll be renewing Viewcamera unless the latest edition with Chris's stuff is a radical improvement (especially after the last issue that appeared to have been printed in someones basement on an old school duplicating macheine...! Add to which this whole "we have additional articles on our site but you need to use the secret code from your latest subscription envelope" is just pathetically childish - the "code" changed about a month ago and I still haven't got a new one yet - it's an excellent way to annoy your subscribers).

 

Then I look to magazines like Details - which has recently had two wonderful stories shot by Stephen Shore in it, for example.

 

As for Photo Vision, the one article that cathes my eye from the current edition on the website is OIL AND WATER: AVEDON AND WINOGRAND - is it worth getting for that? How substantive an article is it? Does it say anything new?

Donald, I recently met Steve, and showed him my work, all of which is made on large-format sheet film. Steve was complimentary about my photos, but would not even consider them for publication because my work is scanned and printed digitally. Never mind that the whole magazine is scanned and printed digitally; if the digital process enters into my printmaking process in any way, then the images are somehow not suited for the magazine-- independently of whether any maniplations have been made. Jerry Ulsemann's prints would be suited for the magazine, but not my straight prints which are made digitally just because that's the highest-quality process out there right now. Now what was that comment you made about someone being entrenched in the past?

 

~chris jordan (Seattle)

 

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

Chris,

 

You might want to try submitting to Luddite Quarterly - I've heard they are more open to digital submissions...

Chris,

 

I understand your question and your position. Where does one draw the line today? Should a line be drawn? What comprises digital? Is it only when the image is rendered in camera, or is it at any point of the process? Not easy questions for me to answer. Thank God that it is not up to me to answer those questions and to render judgements.

 

I believe that your presentation may have been the basis for one of the questions that Steve Anchell posed in his latest edition. I encourage you to read at least that portion.

 

The strongly voiced non-digital stance is something that Steve has examined. In fact he indicated a desire to have the readers of his publication communicate their desires for what his publication should consist of and the direction it should take. If you were to read his statement in the latest issue, you would see that he has opened the lines for communication.

 

I believe that animosity and snide remarks have no place in the common good of those of us who engage in traditional (film based) photography. It would seem that maturity and a sincere desire for the greatest good for all would be of maximum benefit. I am not speaking to you, Chris, in this portion of my reply.

 

I have stated my case. I believe that this is a valuable publication. I believe that it has a needed place in our community. I understand that there may be differing viewpoints. That is of course as matters stand. Sometimes we need to "agree to disagree". I of course will strive to "disagree without being disagreeable".

 

Best wishes in your photography Chris. I would like to see examples of your work if it is available online. If that is the case, please email me offpost with the URL.

 

Best regards,

Donald Miller

" I understand your question and your position. Where does one draw the

line today? Should a line be drawn? What comprises digital? Is it only when the

image is rendered in camera, or is it at any point of the process? Not easy

questions for me to answer. Thank God that it is not up to me to answer those

questions and to render judgements."

 

I think perhaps you miss the point - and perhaps it also part of the problem facing PhotoVision? - you don't draw a line, because it isn't about drawing lines. It's not either or. It should simply be about the quality of the image (an entirely different set of judgement issues...), not about how it was produced. That should really be entirely irrelevant, surely?

Tim,

Perhaps you failed to understand my statement about "agreeing to disagree". That is what I have decided that you and I must do. I wish you well.

Donald, thanks for your thoughful reply, and let me apologize for my snide remark-- I got up on my high horse for a sec there... I have been under the impression that Photovision was not open to discussion on this subject; I'm glad to learn otherwise.

 

I suppose it really comes down to the publisher's goals. Every magazine has to have a defined scope, and for legitimate reasons Photovision might not want to broaden its coverage. I appreciate the need to define the magazine's purpose, and to that end I think drawing a line somewhere is important.

 

However, my opinion is that the line between digitally and non-digitally imaged photographs is becomming a more-and-more difficult one to hold, and I have some doubts about its value. I can envision a meaningful line to be drawn between camera-generated and computer-generated images, or maybe images that are held out as representational, versus digitally manipulated art. Or maybe there's a very cool line to be drawn between color and B&W photography-- there isn't a magazine that's devoted primarily to color photographic art despite the plethora of diverse and interesting color work being done out there.

 

But to me, drawing the line at how someone prints their film-generated photographs is sort of like a woodworking magazine eliminating coverage of all woodworkers who use electric tools versus non-electric hand tools. Almost all woodworkers use electric tools of one kind or another nowadays, and similarly the vast percentage of color photograhic artists are using digital processing and printing because it provides the highest-quality output available.

 

In my own case, for example, over the last 14 years I have spent an ungodly amount of money (more than $60,000) testing every color photographic printing process in the world, including Ciba/Ilfo, Evercolor, Carbro-Ultrastable, Ataraxia, Lightjet, Iris and various generations of dye- and pigmented-inkjet processes. My own personal goal is to make the highest-quality prints possible, regardless of the cost or effort involved. And what I have finally arrived at is the Epson 9600, which I believe makes the sharpest, most color-accurate, luminous, and overall beautiful color photographic prints that have ever been made by any process.

 

My use of the digital medium for my printing has nothing to do with any desire to leave the traditions of photography behind, or be a technical nerd, or get away with something easy instead of learning how to print in a darkroom. I spent years learning masking techniques and all the densitometer this-and-that to print Ciba, and now I've put the same time and energy and expense into my digital studio. If something better came along that was a handmade process, I'd drop digital in a heartbeat. For now, digital for me is a high-level craft that allows me to realize my photographic vision in a way that no other process can. And I've got the prints to prove it!

 

In other words, in my mind there's no real artistic distinction to be drawn between digital and non-digital photographic printing, especially in color; both media are tools that we can choose depending on what we want to accomplish.

 

So if defining Photovision's scope were up to me, I would alter the focus a little-- open it up to all color representational photographic imagery (which is what the term "Photovision" means to me), and then make selections of whose work to publish based on high standards of artistic taste. There are magazines out there that continue to print the usual old nature landscapes, but there's enough innovative, interesting and beautiful color photography going on out there that you could never print another landscape and still fill Photovision's issues with cool work that readers would look forward to every month.

 

I'd be happy to continue this discussion off-list, if you're interested in any further thoughts. My contact info is on my website (link below). Ideally, if you're ever in Seattle we could chat in my studio over a glass of Porto while my 9600 spits a new 40x50!

 

warm regards, and send my best to Steve,

 

~cj (Seattle)

 

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

<i>I think perhaps you miss the point - and perhaps it also part of the problem facing PhotoVision? - you don't draw a line, because it isn't about drawing lines. It's not either or. It should simply be about the quality of the image (an entirely different set of judgement issues...), not about how it was produced. That should really be entirely irrelevant, surely?</i><p>

I think there should be a line drawn since both methods have an entierely different feel to them, specially in B&W. This is even more needed for those marketing their jet prints as "carbon pigment prints" which has nothing to do with the carbon pigment process of old. If the process should not matter why then trying to come up with similar names for the digital processes? WHat the hell is this "digital platinum gliceè" Cone talks about?, there is no platinum used!<p>

I guess since all of you feel so strongly about it, you dont buy or read those magazines dedicated solely to digital photography, uh? <p>

It is fine if people think digital is the best thing since sliced bread, but dont try to claim this "the result is what matters only" if so, then next time you submit your work to a gallery tell them you are selling ink jet prints, not some of those cutsy names they have coined for the prints.

Jorge, the reason that digital prints are named various names is exactly the same reason that B&W darkroom prints are named different things. No one would lump all B&W prints into one category; they are legitimately divided into numerous categories based on the papers used, the toners used, and other factors. If a B&W photographer went into a gallery with his work, he would present his prints as "sepia-toned gelatin silver prints on fiber-based paper" or whatever. He would never just say "these are B&W photographs."

 

Similarly, those of us who have been working in the digital printing medium for several years, know that there are numerous digital inkjet printers and papers out there. Some printers are lower resolution, some are higher; some use pigmented inks, and some use dye-based inks that fade faster; some papers last longer than others.

 

And so when I go into a gallery today with my prints, I want the gallery owner and any prospective purchasers to know what they're getting-- that my prints are made on the highest-resolution printer yet produced, using the best-quality inks available, on what I have chosen as the best paper for my work. Thus the term "Ultrachrome prints on Epson Premium Semimatte paper."

 

~cj

Jorge,

 

My prints used to be described as Colour Chromgenic prints or Colour Dye Coupler prints when I got them printed in my lab using and enlarger and they ever went to a gallery.

 

Now I call them exactly the same, only my lab (the same lab) prints them from a digital file using a Lightjet printer - but it's the self same paper.

 

On top of which they are still both photographs.

 

This is one reason I say that trying to proscribe some kind of dividing line is perhaps a pointless exercise.

 

I still have yet to understand why there seems to be such a fear of the digital process? And even an anger directed at those who use it.

Chris, if they won't consider your prints because they

involved digital techniques, maybe they can consider your

transparencies ? Then it will be up to them to print them

in the magazine without using digital techniques :-)

<i>Jorge, the reason that digital prints are named various names is exactly the same reason that B&W darkroom prints are named different things. No one would lump all B&W prints into one category; they are legitimately divided into numerous categories based on the papers used, the toners used, and other factors. If a B&W photographer went into a gallery with his work, he would present his prints as "sepia-toned gelatin silver prints on fiber-based paper" or whatever. He would never just say "these are B&W photographs."

 

Similarly, those of us who have been working in the digital printing medium for several years, know that there are numerous digital inkjet printers and papers out there. Some printers are lower resolution, some are higher; some use pigmented inks, and some use dye-based inks that fade faster; some papers last longer than others.

 

 

And so when I go into a gallery today with my prints, I want the gallery owner and any prospective purchasers to know what they're getting-- that my prints are made on the highest-resolution printer yet produced, using the best-quality inks available, on what I have chosen as the best paper for my work. Thus the term "Ultrachrome prints on Epson Premium Semimatte paper." </i><p>

Yeah well a sepia toned silver gelatin print on fiber based paper describes in detail the process, a "carbon pigment print" does not.

What pray tell is an "ultrachrome print"? Not a thing, it is an inkjet print using ultrachorme inks or pigments, or whatever they are...no?

See there again is the "close but no cigar name". I have no problem telling gallery owners I make pt/pd prints, why do you have a problem spelling out <b>INK JET</b> prints?<p>

 

<i>I still have yet to understand why there seems to be such a fear of the digital process? And even an anger directed at those who use it</i><p>

I suppose it is the same fear that drives digital printers to try to come up with cutsy names for their prints. Why cant digital stand on its own? If as you say the "product is all that matters" then call them as you see them, and not try to misrepresent them as something they are not.<p>

It is not fear of digital, to each its own. It is this never ending bits of "just like", "equal to", "better than" statements that never seem to come to fruition. All of the sudden if one magazine dares to just want to talk about classic methods digital printers are incencesed, how dare they! But as soon as you all want to sell your prints, ah well, lets see how we can make them sound like the old processes. Why is that?<p>

 

As Don said, we will agree to disagree, but OTOH dont pi$$ on my back and try to tell me is raining.

What difference does it make how a photographer prints his

images? I print in platinum and I make prints from an ink jet

printer. The only thing I am concerned about when I view a print

is how I respond emotionally to the image. Some print media

are more effective for some images. If photographers would

spend more time and passion making more expressive images

and less time worrying about the techniques of craft we would all

be be better off. There are a lot of crappy photographers making

traditional prints and a lot of digital photographers making

exceptional images. I want to see what they have to say. I don't

care much how they say it.

"I suppose it is the same fear that drives digital printers to try to come up with cutsy names for their prints.

 

Photographs have always had cutesy names in galleries - it's part of the game - Colour Chromgenic prints or Colour Dye Coupler prints are just colour prints - but then what are Ciba or Ilfochrome prints? Hmm - prints made on paper and with chemical by Ciba Geigy or Ilford - then why not just call them colour prints? Because it's a marketing game - same for pt/pd or silver gelatin - they are just fancy artspeak names for plain old black and white photographs - that's all (paltinum isn't just a metal - it's also a colour - call something platinum if it looks like that - Lexus does). All we make is photographs - plain and simple - writing with light - it's doesn't matter what brand of pen or pencil we use, or what we write on. We only give them fancy names when we want to sell them to the highest bidder.

 

"I want to see what they have to say. I don't care much how they say it". Exactly to the point - Gursky makes great photographs - I don't care that some are digital and some aren't - they are just great photographs.

<i>same for pt/pd or silver gelatin - they are just fancy artspeak names for plain old black and white photographs - that's all </i><p>

I beg to differ, the name describes the process perfectly. Not so with ink jet prints made with ultrachrome pigments, or piezo inks. Just fancy names for ink jet prints. <p>

When you say pt or silver print there is no mistaking the type of print it is, when you say ultrachrome etc, there is that sneaky intent to make them sound better, as if they were made the classic way.<p>

I dont label my pt prints " precious metal mining XYZ pt print" while people making ink jet prints use the trademark name of the inks to "coincidentally" enough make them sound better.<p>

If all you care is what they say not how they name them then you should not have a problem calling them ink jet prints and marketing them as such....no?<p>

Jorge you are making one of those incoherent arguments that reveals much more about the arguer than it does about the subject. You seem to be afraid of something, which is causing you to get emotional and mean-spirited to strangers. Maybe digital is a little intimidating to you? Maybe you're afraid the quality of digital is better than what you can produce? Maybe you're afraid that you're getting left in the dust? I don't know, and so far you aren't willing to go there. In any event, you sure aren't convincing me of anything about photography! Good day to you.

 

~cj

"same for pt/pd or silver gelatin - they are just fancy artspeak names for

plain old black and white photographs - that's all

I beg to differ, the name describes the process perfectly."

 

So does Carbon Pigment Print - a print made with inks which consist of suspended carbon pigments - I don't think you can get much more simply descriptive than that?

<i>why do you have a problem spelling out INK JET prints?</i>

<p>

Most digitally printing photographers would avoid the term 'ink jet' simply because the great unwashed out there would immediately imagine a low quality printer. Most people are not aware of the astounding improvements in ink jet print quality, so the term 'ink jet' carries a stigma. In time, perceptions of ink jet print quality will improve. Then, I imagine, the term will lose its stigma.

<p>I would never use the 'g' word though.

<p>Distrust of digital processes comes from the possibility that you might have faked that spectacular sky, boosted those colours, or dropped in that penguin at the North Pole. That is a much more difficult perception to combat.

Chris, typical response, a little dig at being afraid of digital to refuse to admit the truth. Fine with me, I know I have nothing to fear from digital, you OTOH seem to need to label your prints "ultrachrome" to legitimize them. Perhaps I am being left in the dust, perhaps you are deceiving yourself with the wonderfulness of your method....who knows?

 

I too have grown tired of this, so I will leave with a last example. Last time I visited Houston, I went to the John Cleary gallery. He had a beautiful print by David Fokos, just the kind of print I like and if I had had the money at the time I would have bought it. The thing is, the print was clearly labeled: "Fuji Chrystal Archive print form digital negative." Now this is a clear example of a photographer who stands on his work and does not need to label his work in cutsy or misleading words. Certainly he did not use the "chromogenic super duper inafalible lasts 1000 years print". His was simple and to the point and in fact separated him from any other work. So if honesty does not convince you there is nothing I can do about that, but dont tell me there is nothing else than just the image when you dont practice what you preach.