Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

[michael_feldman1]

FW,

 

<p>

 

I don�t think the purpose of Mr. DeWolfe�s article was to compare and

contrast the various digital printing products available. Mr. DeWolfe

was obviously trying to promote digital printing over wet processes,

and he used Piezography has his best argument to state his case. Many

photographers are asked about , and are gracious enough, to discuss

the products and technical methods they use. I don�t believe that

they necessarily have an �obligation� to discuss all competing

products. Since Mr. DeWolfe has previously used and taught workshops

in digital printing using the MIS and Lyson products (see my previous

post above), I suspect that he would glad to explain, in the

appropriate forum, why he prefers Piezography.

 

<p>

 

Since the introduction of PiezographyBW Pro24 using the Epson 7000,

there is not much serious debate about the superiority of Piezography

(which includes proprietary print drivers and inks) over other

digital B&W printing products (inks only) among people knowledgeable

in this field. There may be debates about the cost of Piezography

vs. the other digital products, but not the quality. In fact, the

reason why Piezography is so expensive compared to MIS and Lyson, is

that they are not serious competitors to Piezography in terms of

quality.

 

<p>

 

For a comparison of a Piezography and MIS print see the following:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.piezography.com/side-by-side.html">Cone vs MIS</a>

 

<p>

 

I don�t believe that there is a similar magnitude of difference

between photographs taken by equivalent models of a Nikon and Canon.

 

<p>

 

You make note of the fact that the Piezography web site has a link to

a copy of Mr. DeWolfe�s article. There are thousands of manufacturers

web sites (not just in photography) that have links (or copies) of

favorable reviews of their products. That does not mean that there

is �payola� involved. If you have hard eveidence to the contrary,

please share it with us.

 

<p>

 

The above comments notwithstanding, I think your criticism of the

article (that it was a bit thin in terms of technical content) is

perfectly justified. Perhaps Mr. DeWolfe will follow it up with more

detailed articles on this subject. Or maybe he just expects that we

will sign up for his workshop to get the answers.

[fw1]

Please refer to my first post ; normal editorial practice would be to

disclose whether the writer of an article praising specific products

commercially available, with reference neither to specific testing

data nor to competing products, had a commercial interest or not in

those products. This just hasn't happened in this case. That's all.

[michael_feldman1]

I don't know why you think it would be normal editorial practice for

DeWolfe to deny that he has any financial interest in Cone Editions

Press or Piezography (other than teaching Piezography at his own

workshops). Many people talk about the products they use without such

denials. In fact, I don't recall seeing anyone deny a financial

interest in a product they discuss. Obviously, if the reverse is

true, and someone does have a financial interest, then it should be

disclosed.

[fw1]

<i>at the risk of repeating myself</i> ; because of the way the

article was written, and where it was already publically available.

Have you actually <i>read</i> it?

[dan_smith]

This might need to be addressed in another thread but it has a place

here. In the current issue of Focus on Imaging (a lab magazine) Ron

Eggers states in his article "Piezography Black & White: Digital Fine

Art Printing" the following.

 

<p>

 

"In order for a digitally generated print to compete with a darkroom

print, it has bo be able to reproduce all the subtleties that are

inherent in black and white. Until recently, that hasn't been

possible. With ConeTech's Piezography BW black and white printing

system, it is possible. In fact, in some respects, the results are

better than what can be produced in a darkroom".

 

<p>

 

"Using proprietary ICC profiles, which optimize the tonal response

according to the paper selected, Piezo black and white prints exceed

darkroom generated prints in tonal range and quality."

 

<p>

 

"New England landscape photographer George DeWolfe was the first beta

tester for the ConeTech system. He firststarted playing with it in

early 1999, with an Epson 3000. He now has 12 different printers

generating fine art prints of his work, four of which are dedicated

to black and white work". He's very satisfied with

theresults. "They're much better than anything that can be printed in

the darkroom .The quality is higher....the control you have is

infinitely greater. It's better by a factor of ten, at least".

 

<p>

 

Nationally known wedding and fine art photographer Rober Hughes is

using an Epson 300 to generate his B&W prints. He was the fifth or

sixth person to install a ConeTech system. ....Hughes has totally

abandoned the darkroom. "I'm totally digital now. I just can't see

why anyone would want to continue working in the darkroom."

 

<p>

 

So it *appears* as a result of these articles and the all too

prevalent 'follow the leader' mentality of so many that B&W darkrooms

are now dead and gone except for a few of us old farts, who obviously

produce inferior prints with a now limited tonal range compared to

the newest, latest & greatest printing medium on the planet.

 

<p>

 

I have two enlargers, a total investment of $500, lenses for them in

formats from 35mm to 5x7, an investment of approximately $2000, and

trays, etc. All work well and have for years. They don't crash and

don't 'do down'. If need be I can print by running a dryer tube from

the enlarger head to the roof & piping in sunlight when the power

goes out. I use those damn old smelly chemicals and can print a

series of the same image, put in varying developer and toner

combinations as I search for the elusive image that speaks to the

message I want to convey... and I can do it without owning 12

different printers and 55 different paper combinations.

 

<p>

 

As for "Quality", I admit the Piezography prints I have seen to date

looked nice. But in direct comparison to the prints I have done they

are missing the blacks & high end whites due to current limitations

in inks/pigments/papers or whatever. I am also not sold yet as to the

real life of the prints. I still want to see a good scan of one of my

8x10 or 8x20 negatives and a same size print of it to do a direct

comparison to a fine contact print. I know digital is getting there,

but anyone who doesn't know why someone "would want to spend time in

the darkroom" is getting too many gamma rays from their f*****g

computer screen to think straight. I bet such idiots drive automatic

transmissions only or live in New York City and take Taxi cabs...

 

<p>

 

If Piezography works for you, use it. It is a different medium and a

different interpretation. Let it stand on its own rather than the

incessant insecure blathering of "as good as... or better than".

Niether digital or silver will win that argument when the

participants have already chosen sides. It is the equivalent of an

election where a bunch of partisan judges appoint a president & are

so ashamed of themselves they say the decision can't be used as

precedent for anything else... they say they are right & cover their

eyes, ears & mouths and shut up. This argument is the same... except

we don't really have an independent standard all will use for

comparison.

 

<p>

 

I don't care if DeWolfe works for Cone... but if he does I think he

should (and would) post that information just as Arthur Morris

posts "I am a Canon contract shooter" on all his posts, publications

and talks. I will leave it to DeWolfe to do so and will give him the

benefit of the doubt for now. I see he uses the system & loves it. I

print on silver paper & love that. I have to live with the computer

just as I have to live with mosquitoes in the field and just as with

them I take pains to limit exposure.

 

<p>

 

I think the trumpeting of superiority is premature at best &

deceitful at worst. Maybe the stuff really is that good. For now I

see it as the digital equivalent of RC paper... no reason it isn't

MUCH better than fibre except every time we are told that by the

makers & marketers it comes back & bites us in the ass big time.

 

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Dan, I think we need to give Jim a rest and continue the thread

somewhere else, maybe in the news group.

In respect to your post, I agree with you (big surprise being a LF

fotog myself) but lets face it, DeWolf and all these other people are

just trying to drumm up business for themselves, When I first read

the article I dismissed it right away and now I am wondering why I

got sucked into this discussion. The article is a self serving piece,

lacking depth and I saw it more as a piece of advertisemnt than

a "real" article. If anything I think we must be more concerned with

Simmons's choice of article and ask ourselves why he keeps running it

in his two magazines? If his magazine is titled the Journal of Large

Format Photography, why is he running this c**p?

As a chemist I have never seen the ACS Journal run a piece without

explanation, background and examples, so lets face it we LF fotogs

are in a tizzy because of what one self serving snake oil salesman

said in a run of the mill magazine. Maybe WE are the fools for paying

attention to this guy, if anything he accomplished his goal he got

some of us curious.

In the end I think those of us who enjoy LF and darkroom work will

keep on working like this, and those who are itching to try

piezography can't wait for the prices to go down, or to win the

lottery. In any case we will not decide this here and I doubt we will

change the opinions either way.....

[charles_dickins]

Perhaps, again, a different thread but might I expand your discussion

with a view from across the pond?

 

<p>

 

Here in London there is a very large sector of "traditional"

photographers, and as a result we have some very fine B&W printers. I

myself use a celebrated fellow called Robin Bell (prints for Bailey /

Avedon / Griffiths etc) to make my 'exhibition' prints, whilst using

my own cosy (though properly set up) darkroon in my basement for more

commercial printing. I have recently setup a little digital side to

this (now even more cosy) room and so have a 'dry' process at my

disposal.

 

<p>

 

I have three points to make. Appropo of nothing I took in a test

print of mine to Robin to ask his opinion. This was printed on an

Epson 2000P converted to running with Lyson inks, on some superb

heavyweight (300gsm) Permajet Portrait matt paper. His jaw nearly hit

the floor.

 

<p>

 

This was a test print, and Piezo24 is meant to be better than Lyson!

 

<p>

 

My assesment of his reaction is that he didn't realise how good digi

has got and he also was looking at a print on paper of a weight and

mattness that he cannot use. It looks like a piece of artwork. Thus

he was actually reacting to it itself, rather than as a possible

replacement for his traditional processes.

 

<p>

 

Sceondly, and echoing a lot of the previous comment in this matter,

it is a widely held view by each and every decent snapper over here

that you cannot put shit in and get shinola out. We live in a very

competitive city where there are over 1000 people going for each

commission, and I can assure you that discerning Art Buyers and Art

Directors are not impressed by portfolios full of mundane images,

however gimmiky the presentation. Conversely a stunning image,

presented in an non conventional way (ie wonderful paper, modern

process) gets extra attention.

 

<p>

 

I too was a n'ersaydigital, but am now fully into it. It suits my

business, which is commercial photography - I need to output prints

at a reasonable cost to my clients and with less drain on my time.

Unfortunately I do have clients who won't let me only print up a

lovely 20x16 of their darling Johnny, but insist on 20 7x5 and 3 10x8

also. Printing 20 matching 7x5 prints conventially is depressing.

Digitally I get it right once and then bash 'em out. Frankly on a

7x5 you're pushed to see the difference. I think a lot of the

discussion has come from people (apologies if I'm wrong) who sell

their prints as art. These men are the true descendants of Adams and

his like and have their own place in the current market. These are

the guys who understand receiprocity failure and know how

solarization really works. I'm old enough to have been through that

school of learning, but at 36 young enough to embrace the good points

of what is happening now (and indeed to look at what's happening

objectively through experienced eyes). It's horses for courses.

 

<p>

 

Lastly a comment on large format. Firstly I would just like you over

there in the USA to know that we cannot buy 10x8 Tri-X here, so count

yourselves lucky. We sadly, really have to deal with the T-max

issue. However I (not being stupid) get people to bring me some back

when visiting NY, and have been doing some film/scanner tests.

 

<p>

 

The only point that I want to make that shouldn't arouse any

controversy is that you really need to see the difference between a

drum scan of a 10x8 and that of a 120 neg. WOW! It takes you back

to that intial excitement of seeing your first 10x8 neg through a

lupe. Now do a Piezo print from that and we can start to compare it

properly.

 

<p>

 

However, if this takes things that extra stage that convinces the

doubters then unfortunately another element comes into play - COST.

There are numerous comments from the pro lobby about cost, and the

inexpense of printing digitally. Well just in much the same way as

LF photography is more expensive per image than 35mm so we should be

aware of scanning issues in digital work. You cannot improve on the

quality of a hi-end drum scanner. A 10x8 100MB 16bit Grey scan costs

£200 ($350) from a bureau over here. The initial cost of a drum

scanner (hardware) are obviously prohibitve and the learning involved

in that.....................Let's face it; are you a photographer, a

printer or a scanner chappy. As a commercial photographer, time spent

scanning is time not spent shooting or touting for work, and with

wanting to retain the printing element there is only so much time you

can dedicate to your portfolio presentation!

 

<p>

 

In summary I think you have to adopt the old adage, "If it ain't

broke' don't fix it".

 

<p>

 

If you already make a living from selling beautiful silver prints

that you loved making - keep doing it. If you don't enjoy the smell

of fix and having to print 20 7x5 all matching, get out of the wet

and into the dry. There's no right or wrong, better or worse. This

is simply an alternative way, and it needs perfecting - so Jon Cone

should be applauded for that and, although his manner of delivery

might has been less dismissive, for those that are interested George

DeW's comments are worth hearing.

 

<p>

 

If you don't want to buy a car, don't go and talk to a salesman in

your local auto dealers!