Did anyone see the editor's statement in B&W

[hyperfocal]

Did any of you see B&W magazine's editorial statement affirming traditional photography over digital? It's in the latest issue. The editor made a point about digital being technology used for reproduction, like a lithograph, while he equated traditional photography with being 0a craft. Not 100% sure of the analogy's validity, but I think the affirmation is wonderful - someone taking a stand at least, and not selling out to the brave new virtual world (where humanity becomes the slave of technology and supposedly gain "increased productivity" but for whom and for what???). Maybe not all is lost!

[david_grandy5]

I find it funny to hear analog photographers echo painters and

critics of the early 20th century. Those critics despised

photography and why not; "photography requires no skill", "it ain't

art" and so on and so on. These painters and critics were like

analog photographers of the present; jealous of the new medium and

terrified that skills learned over a lifetime would become useless.

 

<p>

 

Photography needed Ansel Adams - and others - to deviate from

the "painting immitation" crowd of that time, and to show what

photography could be. Digital photography is in its very early days

and digital's "Ansel" has yet to come to the forefront to create

that new artform. But that person will come. And in 50 years

digital photography will be viewed in the same way as any mature art

and some day it too will be supplemented by another visual form.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Not as long as digital keeps comparing itself to traditional

photgraphy David. In the past photgraphers never said, "we are doing

exactly the same as painting but better and easier" which is what

digital proponents do now. I always find it funny that digital

proponents always fall back on this "painter's argument" of the past

but you always say...hey my photoshop does this and that just like in

the darkroom, or my Epson printer is just as good and the prints last

much longer than a platinum/palladium printe...etc.

 

<p>

 

Why cant you people come up with your own techniques? why does it

always have to be compared to traditional photography? is it because

you want to give it some validity without earning it?

if digital is so wonderful why is it always saying "better than

film/paper/chemical/darkroom?

 

<p>

 

Look as far as I am concerned I can spot a digital print even if it

is done with the MIS or Cone inks, not because the quality is not

there, but because for some reason the "feel" is just not the same.

lets remember that even though there are electric pianos, people

still use Stainway....as a matter of fact I have yet to go listen to

a symphony on an electric piano.

[rob_pietri5]

The landscape painters of old used what was called a "camera

obscura." Essentially it was a pinhole camera the size of a tent,

with aperatures on all four sides. The painter would set it up in the

direction of his subject. Then get inside, and project the image to

an easel and canvas. No wonder those works had such uncanney

perspective. They eventually added lenses, shrunk it down to box size

and with the invention light sensative materials, gave birth to the

camera.

 

<p>

 

Now the next evolution or devolution; digital. Will it replace

traditionl photography? Maybe, maybe not. One area that needs to be

addressed is the permanency of a digitally stored image. Is it

archival? I have no factual information on that but hear it is not.

 

<p>

 

Another area is where is the border line between photography and

graphic arts and how much overlapping grey area is there? It really

depends on the extent of the manpulations. Painters have the

flexability to add or ommit trees, rocks, any part of the subject

they want. A photographer has to work with what is there infront of

the lens for the slice in time of the duration of the exposure. A

painter can return as many times as they want and over a period of

time, days, weeks, even months, capture what they want on canvas. Now

with digital and Photoshop, a photographer, graphic artist, can do

the same. Where will it end, begin?

 

<p>

 

Right now the best thing to do is grab your camera and go take

pictures! BY!

[andrew_held]

I agree with the editor of B&W. Part of the power of photography has

been photographers ability to develop around the limitations of the

medium. This is no different than the way that musicians learn to

develop music with the power and beauty of their chosen instrument.

Digital photography is far less limited in its capabilities. For this

reason, I believe the medium will increasingly diverge and grow apart

from traditional "analog" photography. It will because it can. When

it truly breaks free it will add immeasurably to culture and arts.

Early photography similarly had to break free from imitation of

earlier painterly and drafting traditions. B&W's editor's courageous

stance will help digital workers break free from the constraints of

attempting to imitate or "better" traditional photography and

encourage to explore in new ways. For these reasons I think there will

continue to be a strong market for traditional "craft" oriented

photography and the new medium of digital imaging. In ten years I

don't think anyone will be thinking about digital vs analog, they will

both be thriving in their own way.

[charlie_strack]

Yesterday I got a digital print wet, and the colors ran. That never

happened to me with a silver gelatine print.

[dk_thompson]

hmm...wasn't this discussed someplace else recently, was it this

forum?? deja vu...but no, I haven't read the editorial...however isn't

it sort of ironic that you all would find the editorial "courageous",

in that the slant of the magazine is towards collecting fine art &

silver based photography. I have only bought one issue of that

magazine, and flipped through a couple of others, but I found it to be

more about collecting images or showcasing certain photographers more

than the act of photography....to me a magazine like Lenswork, or View

Camera for example is more about photography--theory & art & craft, if

you will.

 

<p>

 

It also strikes me as ironic, to "take a stand" against digital

imaging, in that the publication is a slick magazine....probably

printed on a web press, and all the pre-press done digitally to begin

with.....maybe you could take stand against digital by not buying any

publication that is produced with any type of digital support....go

back to something printed on a letterpress with the photos tipped

in.....oh, MY opinions only.

[hyperfocal]

DK Thompson - Yes, you are correct in your comments. I guess such

a "stance" isn't too surprising from a source like B&W magazine.

Sorry for the naivete, still it was good to hear somebody of a

commerical mindset not blindly jumping on the digital bandwagon.

This was all I was getting at ... sorry to let my cynicism not get

the best of me. It won't happen again.

[jonathan brewer]

S.O.S.....All this is like arguing about who's got the best wife.

I don't care how great you think yours is, I'm not getting rid of

mine anytime soon.

 

<p>

 

When the future arrives, it is never as predicted, and what do

most of these predictions mean anyway? They don't mean anything until

they come true, and who knows when they will.

 

<p>

 

This traditional Photography/digital argument will go on and on,

and there will never be a winner. No true artform ever dies.

[dk_thompson]

No..., believe me I am a real cynic in regards to digital, but it's

all around us....there practically isn't a product or publication out

there that isn't done in at least some small part with computers &

digital output etc. As for B&W, I'll admit it has beautiful

reproduction...but so does Communication Arts, or Step By Step

Magazine, or Print. It's just ironic to me to take a firm standing

against digital imaging in light of the fact that digital technology

is used in the production of the magazine itself, and for their

website from which you can order collector's prints....which I assume

are silver-gelatin based. And then probably someday, if not already,

the magazine itself will become collectible....

 

<p>

 

I suspect the answer to this will be that the magazine caters to those

who collect the artifact--not the reproduction. Okay, fine. That's the

"cottage trade" there, or for those with access to great galleries or

benevolent public museums...I reserve the right to be a cynic here,

though, since I work in a museum and out of 250,000+ objects, the

general public will probably see only about 10% ever....without

arranging some sort of personal viewing & going through the protocol

for that. What I see as the reality of this, is that alot of people

get their exposure to photography, and fine art photography through

printed materials like B&W magazine and books etc. Now on the internet

as well.....as for me, having worked in an offset printing shop in a

previous life, I actually enjoy looking at a finely printed

book....to me I see the "art" in reproduction as well.....MY opinions

as always.

[dk_thompson]

Oh yeah, btw..making a lithograph is a craft...so is running a little

AB Dick press....printing & photography, whether cranking out low-brow

publications or limited editions...it's all a craft and a trade....who

was iut? Steiglitz?? Who did Camera Work...I work with a guy who does

letterpress printing ont the side, and works with solarplate materials

as well....it may be "reproduction", but it's also as an art form....

[jonathan brewer]

There is Digital now, and there's what digitals gonna be. You are

right about who uses it and who should use it, which is of course a

different issue than the all too familiar pronouncements about how and

why you should be depressed doing what you in fact really love doing

because of what digital will be five yrs from now.

 

<p>

 

If they discover an asteroid that they say may destroy all life on

earth in 10yrs, I'll still do what I love doing, I'll hug my wife,

I'll use my cameras. Under those dire circumstances, I'd probably

intesify all the activities I love to do.

 

<p>

 

What keeps coming up in this debate is two agendas disguised as

one. The concept of digital is the first agenda, the second agenda is

the pronouncement so many people make when talking of the first agenda

that you should get depressed and give up anything else you're doing

if it isn't digital, that it is simply a waste of time. Publishing

is different of course.

 

<p>

 

If someone wants to crunch numbers that's fine, but what does

digital innovation mean to somebody who loves to paint? A sculptor? A

woodworker?........... Nothing.

[merg_ross]

Since we are on this tired topic once again, let me draw your

attention to the March/April issue of Photovision Magazine and

comments made by Carol Williams, owner of Photography West Gallery in

Carmel: "Digital images (to date) still feel contrived and lacking

in palatable soul. Despite rational arguments that the computer is

simply a tool, I am not alone in detecting a cold disturbing,

inexplicable void in the final visual result, no matter how

superficially beautiful the image may appear at first glance." She

certainly is not alone.

 

<p>

 

By the way, this is a magazine dedicated to photography -- no

digital. They will soon be launching a second publication, Digital

Fine Arts -- no photography, states the editor.

[dk_thompson]

haha...see, it's a ridiculous, pointless topic to discuss....big deal!

But why is it that the discussion is played out--yet again--on

computers....if you're so disturbed by the prospect of digital

inaging creeping into your life...then donate your computer to

charity, or go burn some film...I for one, am going to take a stance

against digital by not buying those magazines that take a stance

against digital......

[dave_anton1]

People just don't like change! That's really what's going on here -

nothing more.

[jonathan brewer]

What's happening in the MiddleEast is disturbing, this is nothing,

in fact it's really a non-issue, whatever's going to happen is going

to happen, the prediictions and pronouncements mean nothing, so my

vote is go out and do what you enjoy doing, whatever it is.

 

<p>

 

Digital is probably a must for Magazines and busy commercial

shooters, for everybody else it's elective. I use digital myself as

do most of you, and it's great when I need it, but it's expensive and

throwaway technology as of this minute.

 

<p>

 

Common sense rules my buying habits with regards to digital now,

not being emotoional, disturbed, or overexcited over some digital

hyperbole. The fastest, newest, most expensive widgets don't get my

'mojo' going anymore.

 

<p>

 

Because any of us disagree with you doesn't mean we're disturbed

by digital, on the contrary, I'm fascinated by digital, which is why I

have it. I'm excited as hell about where digital might go, I'm just

no longer gonna pay SMALL FORTUNES to them until they get it right and

a lot cheaper.

 

<p>

 

Digital is here to stay, but ironically digital equipment doesn't

last, in too short a time it becomes worthless, and anybody with any

sense recognizes that before his wallet is completely empty.

 

<p>

 

I paid too much for my printer, it now sells for $49.00! I only

have to go through this kind of cycle once to learn my lesson. I've

had basically the same system now for 2yr with no late purchases, Oh

yes it's very slow, but it's very paid for.

 

<p>

 

Like you I've taken a stance, for my wallet, I'm no longer seduced

by 'bigger', 'faster', and 'better', I make my digital gear that I

already have work for me, no matter how old it is, no matter how slow

it is, and I know a lot a people who do the same.

 

<p>

 

My computer is old, about the only thing you could do with it is

Donate it, I LIKE THAT.

[saulius_eidukas]

Whether you choose to photograph in digital or traditional, color or

black and white, 35mm or 8x10, shoot portraits or street photography,

etc etc is not so important as the end result. When someone is moved

by an image or piece of art it's not because they are thinking about

how it was made, what tools or techniques they employed but the end

result. Is it successful? That's what mattters. I find this

continuing mode of discussion of digital vs traditional tiresome and

unproductive. Digital is here to stay so just get used to it. There

is a place for all modes and styles of photography.

[per_volquartz1]

"Pure" digital photography will without any doubt evolve into its own

art form. All it takes is for someone to "step up to the plate" and

show that it can be done and that digital imaging is unique in its own

right.

 

<p>

 

However, photographers who work in the traditional medium can benefit

greatly from the digital revolution.

And save both time and money along the way.

 

<p>

 

F. inst. by scanning negs and do prelim. dodging and burning in the

computer before making paper prints from the negs. This saves a ton of

time and allows a lot of experimentation as to how the final print may

look.

 

<p>

 

It is also interesting to note that the commercial film industry went

through a similar change 10 years ago. The question was if you should

you shoot commercials on film or on video.

Today the industry has merged the two fields. 99% of all major TV spots

are shot on film and transferred to digital media. If commercials are

shot on video many videographers try to obtain that special "film

look"...

 

<p>

 

It may become similar with regards to traditional photography and

digital imaging.

[matt_oulman]

It's funny.... the folks who are the greatest proponents of digital,

namely the commercial photographers, will be the first victims of the

new technology. They will go the way of the pencil and rule

draftsman, who only 10 years ago was in high demand, but now extinct.

<BR>

Who needs to hire a photographer for the next campaign, when any

pimple faced 16 year old with a few years of photoshop can grab the

Dcam and snap the shot, or more likely create it from scratch right

at the terminal from stock images.<BR>

Good night boys, rest in peace........

[jim_galli4]

Obviously and understandably the folks at this forum are close enough

to both sides of this interesting argument to have opinions and

emotions. Me included, very strong ones. But ultimately it is the

"end user" who decides. It will be fascinating to see what ten years

brings. Will the end user whoever that is decide that a graphic arts

reproduction of "something" who knows what, a stream of 1's and 0's is

indeed art if it pleases the eye, or will "they" after some time to be

educated and digest decide that intrinsic value isn't holding up well

and the digital things will make an adjustment downwards. My cystal

ball isn't working well, I'll just have to wait and see. My bet is on

the traditional processes, each minutely different as created 1 at a

time. But then if I had been alive in 1946 my bet would have been on

the steam locomotives that could still pull 6 of those silly diesel

electric engines backwards.

[chad_jarvis1]

Why is it so hard to understand that if an editor decides not to

focus on digital that he isn't necessarily dismissing the craft.

Isn't it possible that he's just trying to emphasize the "classical"

approach to photography? I believe he even stated in the editorial,

and I paraphrase, that there are plenty of periodicals in the

marketplace that focus on digital; he just doesn't want his to be one

of them. My hat's off to him.<br><br>

 

Personally I don't understand the digital vs. silver argument from

large format photographers. IMHO it's an argument better left to

35mm and MF folks, who work with small frames and are probably

impacted/benefitted to a greater degree than LF users.

[j.b._harlin]

I am not in the habit of writing to every magazine editor. . . In fact

this only one of a couple of letters I have ever sent to an editor. .

. Anyway, here is what I sent. . . I feel it is self explanatory. . .

 

<p>

 

>>>>

 

<p>

 

TO: Mr. Henry Rasmussen, Publisher and Editor, Black & White

Magazine,

 

<p>

 

In reference to your April 2002 issue Opening Shot titled "IN

CONSIDERATION OF CONSTANCY". . .

 

<p>

 

THANK YOU FOR TAKING A "STAND" and making your position clear. . .

Thank

you for not following the "popular" lead of the manufacturers

advertising. . . Thank you for supporting true artisanship. . . Thank

you for being forthright and honest. . . My faith has been restored in

your magazine. . . I WILL continue as a loyal, true supporter and

subscriber.

 

<p>

 

I am so tired of the current battle cry in the photographic world;

"I'M

SELLING MY DARKROOM, I'M GOING DIGITAL." My only question for these

people is. . . WHY??? . . . Because it is suppose to be "COOL". . . to

be the "IN" thing. . . to be QUICK and EASY???. . . I just don't get

it.

. .

 

<p>

 

Digital is its own art form. . . NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR TRADITIONAL

PHOTOGRAPHY. . . The manufacturers see a gold mine here. . . they see

it as a way to get rid of much of their overhead and manufacturing

costs. . . to just sell optical disks containing "VAPOR WARE". . .

quick, easy, no muss, no fuss. . . just high profit with little

effort.

. . a marketing firm dream world!!!

 

<p>

 

Art has never, nor will it ever be created by silicon. . . people

create

art. . . the method they choose is their personal choice. . . to say

new

technology is a "replacement" for traditional methods is just HYPE. .

.

Color photographic materials did not replace B&W. . . Acrylic paint

did

not replace Oil paint. . . DIGITAL IMAGING WILL NOT REPLACE

TRADITIONAL

PHOTOGRAPHY. . . Those that heed the new "Battle Cry" will, I

believe,

eventually regret their choice. . .

 

<p>

 

Enough said. . . let those of us that choose to practice our art form

continue to do so without the distraction of the "Battle Cry". . . and

those that choose to be techno followers continue to support Silicon

Valley. . . I have nothing against digital, nor those that use

digital

means. . . I use digital imaging on a regular basis in maintaining our

web site. . . Choosing the correct tool for the job is the mark of a

true craftsman. . . those that continually play with their tools are

just hackers. . . or should I say dreamers, they continually use their

tools as an excuse for not being creative. . . A poor craftsman always

blames his tools. . .

 

<p>

 

Again, THANKS for taking a stand for what is truly correct. . .

 

<p>

 

JBH

http://www.jbhphoto.com/

>>>>

[bill_smithe2]

JB Your are full of s__t!

 

<p>

 

Get a life Man....

 

<p>

 

Bill

[micah_marty1]

"Did any of you see B&@ magazine's editorial statement?"

 

<p>

 

This was discussed at some length a month ago:

 

<p>

 

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008Q43

 

<p>

 

<><><><>

[dk_thompson]

Okay, I read the editorial...big deal. Look at the scope of the

magazine and it's advertisers as well. What do you expect them to say?

The magazine is about traditional black and white prints and

collecting them as well. It would be the same if they had an editorial

stating that they wouldn't focus on color printing. A real

no-brainer....why it's viewed as "taking a stand" is beyond me....this

isn't an argument against anything..it's just a magazine....