"B&W" magazine says No to digital photographs

B&W, perhaps the fastest growing serious photography magazine (at

least among those that don�t showcase equipment and supermodels), has

declared that it will not feature "digital photography." (No precise

definition was given, but the objection covers at least those

photographs that were _output_ digitally.)

 

<p>

 

In an editorial titled, "In Consideration of Constancy" in the April

2002 issue, B&W publisher/editor/founder Henry Rasmussen writes, "I�m

a traditionalist, in awe of old-fashioned craftsmanship, and moved by

history. For me, this has always been the lure of black and white--its

connection to the past.

 

<p>

 

"The practical ramification for this magazine is that, having now made

our position clear and public, we will not widen our editorial scope

to include Digital photography. This is not a judgment reflecting on

the worth of practitioners of the new ways, but a practical

necessity--it�s impossible to please both sides in the same forum.

 

<p>

 

Rasmussen continues: "However, I will not be shy about expressing an

opinion that keeps me in the Conventional fold: In that age-old

conflict between change and constancy, Digital represents an element

of modern technology while Conventional represents craftsmanship.

 

<p>

 

"This difference does not produce a watershed when it comes to

creativity. It does, however, present a contrast when it comes to the

method of reproduction: Digital utilizes a machine, much like a

printing press, that places the output on a par with an etching, a

lithograph, a poster--works of art that do not qualify as one-off.

Regardless, we may from time to time reevaluate our policy, and will

keep readers informed of developments in the Digital arena.

 

<p>

 

"I realize," Rasmussen concludes, "that the subject can be discussed

endlessly without converts being won by either side. But I do hope

that practitioners of Digital photography will not see our

concentration on Conventional photography as a negative comment on

their priorities, their integrity, or their creativity--only as a

decision in consideration of constancy." (copyright HR/B&W 2002)

 

<p>

 

Again, I have no idea how Rasmussen feels about using digital at an

earlier stage of the process than the printing: for example, a photo

that was shot on 4x5 film, scanned and digitally printed as a 16x20

negative, and then printed as a silver contact print.

 

<p>

 

It�s easy to dismiss Rasmussen as a minority voice of the elite

traditional-print collector crowd, of which many photographers are not

a part. On the other hand, B&W�s circulation figures indicate that the

magazine is reaching a far wider audience than mere collectors (when

young photographers ask me what book to buy to aid in learning to see,

I suggest they "Buy as many back issues of B&W as you can and just

pore over them.") Every time someone in an online forum asks about

magazines that go beyond the gadget/celeb variety, B&W is up there

near the top among recommendations. So B&W is not without influence in

the wider photographic community.

 

<p>

 

Thoughts? Reflective (as opposed to reflexive) responses especially

appreciated.

 

<p>

 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Men Oh Men! How many times are going to rehash this Digital VS

Traditional topic on this forum? So one more magazine of the many

that are doing digital and/or traditional and digital wants to do

only traditional, to my knowledge there are only two, photovision and

now B&W, is this supposed to be a big deal? Oh men, I hope Tuan gets

rid of this thread!!

Magazines can be a thermometer that tells you where the life cycles of

Photography are at. It's interesting to me that this magazine is

thriving in spite of what all the others have said "must" happen.

Tells me traditional photography is quite alive and well at this

point.

 

<p>

 

I wouldn't want to have to walk the fine line that this fellow is

creating for himself. Magazine production is completely dependant on

digits these days isn't it. So obviously if someone sends in a nice

11X14 contact, he has to go to the PC and Scanner to get it into the

magazine. But that's production, not creation.

I see quite a few digital mags not featuring convential (film based,

enlarger printed) photography.

And I can see that every issue this magazine will highlight as

treachery the demise of yet another B&W film. I wonder if there

were magazines for glass plate photography?

What is Rasmussen going to do whan he realizes that this years

Pulitzer Prize winning image is most likely going to be a digital

image?

 

<p>

 

If he publishes it, his credibility will be reach much lower levels

that it just did with his editorial. Lest we forget that a magazine

that publishes excellent photographer should be more concerned with

the message and less concerned with the capture medium.

 

<p>

 

Can you say "Egg on your face".

 

<p>

 

Mike

This year's Pulitzer-prize winning image will probably also be in

color, putting it out of the topic of _B&W_ no matter what the medium,

so that is hardly relevant. An award winning news photograph would

only be of interest if it were available as a collectible print.

 

<p>

 

If the editor has identified an audience that shares an interest in

traditional media, what difference does it make? It's not as if there

aren't plenty of venues for digital work. If the magazine were called

"Pd/Pt" and only published reproductions of platinum/palladium work,

would anyone be bothered?

It's clear to me that Rasmussen just doesn't know enough about digital

photography. Anyone who is an expert at both digital and darkroom

printing recognizes that each medium requires just as much

craftsmanship, artistry, painstaking work, etc. I have yet to meet

anyone who is an expert at both, who disagrees. My experience is

that those who say there is not as much artistry in digital are simply

ignorant of the digital medium.

 

<p>

 

Poor guy, I think he just signed the death certificate for his

magazine.

As a board member of a Photographic Museum I have to say that

Rasmussen is being very short sighted and doing his magazine a

disservice. We regularly show work by many traditional and digital

photographers. When scheduling exhibits we are interested in the

artists imagery quality and not necessarily the medium although both

certainly need to be of the highest quality.

 

<p>

 

I can somewhat see the position of a gallery with respect to archival

issues (almost), but a magazine? A photographic image is a

photographic image despite how it was printed. I am interested in the

image if it is brillant, if it was shot with digital capture, or on

celluloid it is still a brilliant image.

 

<p>

 

Mr. Rasmussen needs to open his eyes, and stop smelling the fixer.

 

<p>

 

Mike

Many of the seminal photographs of the early 20th century, including

most of the masterpieces of Paul Strand, are available only as

photogravures. Wonder if he will reject them?

What the hey. Grab nose, dive in.

 

<p>

 

>I have yet to meet anyone who is an expert at both, who disagrees

 

<p>

 

Chris-

have you ever met an expert at *anything* who was willing to dis his

own "craft"? of course not, so this is a meaningless statement.

 

<p>

 

I'm not trying to dis digital imaging here. however, I think that

anyone trying to make the argument that moving one's fingers over

mouse and keyboard and running to the Epson as "craftmanship" has

their work cut out for them. probably best to focus on other arguments

that make it a valid art form.

 

<p>

 

Michael. There are plenty of places that digital imaging is accepted

and welcome. It is NOT the same (though still just as valid) as what

we have come to know as photography over 150 years +. THAT fixer aroma

is pretty darned obvious, and IMO it only hurts digital to not accept

it. The argument that "oh its exactly the same as what you do" isnt

working now, and I doubt it ever will.

Black and White Magazine is a wonderful publication. Consider its

audience though. Collectors and Galleries. The archival argument

probably falls flat these days with the new materials and testing,

but digital imaging threatens the existing limited-edition model

currently in place. The idea of limited printing and value hierarchy

within the sequence becomes moot. Or does it? I suppose photographers

could print an edition and then delete the files, so perhaps the fact

that all prints are identical ruffles the gallery feathers here?

I agree with the premise that there is an essential difference between machine made objects, and those made one at a time by hand. I see the difference between digital prints and conventional prints to be similar to glassware made from molds, and glassware that is made one at a time by hand. Nice to see that there are others who perceive this difference.

Gee I thought that the idea was to get there, not how difficult the

journey was.

= intrinsic value = excellence. ?? These are ideas lost on a

generation of instant everything. If everybody can get to the same

place in 30 seconds or less by pushing a button, is there any value?

Indeed it's the struggle that fine tunes the artisans and stimulates

the brain to creativeness. We'll find out soon enough what taking

that out of the equation will ultimately produce.

I find it difficult to believe that no digital processes are used in

the printing of the magazine?

Just a question if I may. How many of you here get Black and White

Magazine as a subscription or from the newstand?

It's easy to see why collectors might be a little reluctant to

embrace Digital: A negative can be destroyed and you can see, by

examining the shreds, that it has indeed been destroyed.....Can't do

that with Digital.

What is the big deal? This magazine will fill a niche, and the

marketplace will decide its fate. It will specialize in film

photography much like "Fly Fisherman" specializes in one form of

fishing. Using this comparison, this does not mean that surf fishing

or baitcasting are hated by "Fly's" owners. Likewise it does not

mean Rasmussen hates digitial. So, if you want to read about

digital, you don't buy B&W magazine, just like you don't buy Fly to

find out about the latest/fastest bass boat. If you want to read

about the latest Fenwick flyrod or where to get a few more Royal

Wulffs, "Fly" is the magazine for you. There are already plenty of

excellent magazines that cover digital very well. B&W just chooses

not to. It's their right to decide what their magazine will cover,

it's ridiculous for people who think digital is the "magic bullet" to

get so excited just because he does not share their opinion (sounds

too much like a mob yelling "Kill the heretic"). Personally, I find

it very refreshing and entertaining.

The passionate responses to the mag's position, both in print and on

this and other online forums suggest that a large portion of B&W's

readership are photographers, not collectors. I live in NYC, and

digitally outputted prints are becoming more and more common in high-

end galleries. When I ask, they tell me their clients care about "who

did it" and "what it is", in that order.

 

<p>

 

If anyone's first thought when seeing an image is whether it's

silver, platinum, or digital, the photographer has failed.

 

<p>

 

Amadou Diallo

the thrust behind the magazine and the editorial is money, not

photography. sorry to be cynical here, but the incentive appears to

be return-on-investment, and art appreciation secondary.

Since I'm not at all familiar with the issues--economic,

philosophical, and otherwise--faced by this magazine and its editor,

I'm not sure about how to contribute to the response Micah has asked

for. B&W could go for the niche market and try to do a good job of

satisfying "traditional" or "conventional" photographers or it could

spread itself thinly over the entire field and try to go part way

towards pleasing everybody. I can think of examples of both

approaches but have no idea which best fits this particular situation.

 

<p>

 

Otherwise, I honestly don't see what the problem is. There are

different styles of painting and sculpture, of musical composition

and performance, of dance, and so on. We can have film & wet

darkroom photography; we can have digital photography and imaging--

each with its sundry variations and specialized subspecies. I

consider myself a crafter, using traditional (or conventional)

equipment and technique, where "traditional" means not archaic or

obsolete but beginning in the past and continuing into the present.

But on the basis of what I've learned since coming into LF b&w a

couple of years ago, it's obvious that the digital practitioners are

no less artists, crafters, skilled technicians, and all the rest.

 

<p>

 

I suspect that the reason it sometimes appears that the two camps

can't live in peace is that as with other "traditional" art forms

(classical, blues, and folk music; portrait painting; art film;

classical ballet; and so on), a critical mass of practitioners (i.e.

consumers) is needed in order for it to be economically feasible for

the art form to carry on. It's a special problem for

us "traditionalits" because it really isn't practical to make your

own LF camera, your own lenses, your own film or paper. Resale of

used stuff can keep us going only so long. We can survive with fewer

magazines, fewer shows with smaller audiences, fewer or smaller h.s.

or college classes devoted to our craft, but we've got to have

equipment, supplies, and the means of processing.

 

<p>

 

The day after I bought my 8x10 camera, with 5x7 back, I read a post

on this forum that one of my chosen films, TMax 100 in 5x7, would no

longer be produced by Kodak. And every day since then, I've been

wondering how long all of us will able to keep going. So, my response

to the B&W editorial is to see it in this larger context of the

survival of traditional LF b&w film wet-darkroom photography,

although again I'm not at all sure that this is also the issue, or

the primary issue, for the editor.

Well I have to disagree with you Daniel. Black and White Magazine is

the fastest growing photography magazine on the American market today.

It doesn't cater to "just" collectors and galleries. But it is about

black and white photography from the very beginning of the craft to

todays up and coming artists. It is about all the different

styles encompassed by traditional photography. It "is" about the

image. That is where Henry wants to keep his magazine. If you email

him he will discuss the magazine and why he takes the position he

does. And he will tell you that he does not dismiss digital

photography or image reproduction at all. He merely wants to focus on

images made in the traditional way which is how most of the existing

photography in galleries and collections was made. He is not debating

the status of digital as a new art form. Were an image (it would have

to be a portfolio because this is the only way he will accept images)

to come to him for review that was digitally shot and reproduced, that

was what he thought might be a good article, he probably would include

it. But he focuses on traditional photography and photographers. That

is his audience. He seems to be doing the right thing for his magazine

because it is selling well. And as for galleries and what they will or

won't handle, most black and white photography accepted by galleries

is traditionally produced with traditional silver or pl/pd. There is a

resurrgence of other iron based alt processes too showing up in

galleries. Color is now mostly produced as digital prints mainly due

to the discontinuance of the dye transfer materials. All this talk of

digital vs traditional photography sounds just like the tech wars and

canikonolta battles that are fought endlessly on forums like this.

Pretty dull reading. But not much discussion is devoted to the why of

photography here. How about a little more of that and less "what is

better" arguments.

"fastest growing photography magazine on the American market

today"

 

<p>

 

Total unaudited circulation in over 28 countries = "about" 24,000.

 

<p>

 

It doesn't appear to be the fastest on the American market for

print media.

Bob, can you name some other photography magazines that were only

founded in the past three years that are now at the 24,000 level? I

can't think of any other photography mags that have grown this fast,

but you're probably in a better position to know than I am! Some

digital-video magazines, perhaps, but if there are other plain old

still photography magazines doing this well, that would be worth

noting.

 

<p>

 

.....