B&W Magazine's "no digital" vow gone after only three issues

[micah_marty1]

A follow-up to an earlier thread posted in March

(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003EuS):

 

In its latest issue B&W magazine features the digital composites of

Neil Folberg (see his work at www.neilfolberg.com; click on the

"Celestial Nights" link and then on "The photographs").

 

I think it's interesting that the publisher of B&W presents this work

so soon after his strong comments in the April issue ("I'm a

traditionalist, in awe of old-fashioned craftsmanship . . . Digital

represents an element of _modern technology_ while Conventional

represents _craftsmanship_.")

 

Granted, B&W could defend its position by saying that at least one

stage of Folberg's photographs--the prints--are done Conventionally,

but if that's only a matter of churning out identical prints based on

a perfected digital-composite file, the phrase "Old-fashioned" doesn't

come immediately to mind.

 

I'm not criticizing the change in editorial policy on B&W's part, but

merely noting how quickly the magazine's purist position proved to be

untenable.

 

Fwiw....

[z_z1]

It's all about money. Period. Maybe the editor thought his chest thumping about traditional methods would garner a larger and more dedicated (read more paid up subscriptions)audience. Evidently they didn't realize the rushing to the ramparts on the part of the traditionalists and have therefore decided to embrace a wider audience. Probably a good business move.

 

Eric

[jim_galli4]

C'mon, he can't even do a book review if the book has digital photos? Doesn't seem like a position compromise to me. I think you're over-anxious.

[eugene_singer]

Micah, I don't believe that B&W has changed it's editorial policy, at all. However, I can't help but think that you, and a few others, would like to see them change it. Enough, already!! Do we really need to drive a wedge between wet darkroom printers and dry inkjet printers? Is it really necessary to try to lead the photographic community in that direction? Think about it!

[micah_marty1]

"Micah, I can't help but think that you, and a few others, would like

to see them change it."

 

Sorry if I gave that impression. I shoot only film, do only contact

printing (8x10 and above) and old-fashioned darkroom-style

enlarging (4x5 and under), and scan when necessary only for

publication. So I'm not exactly Mr. Digital, though I have nothing

against it and will eventually move in that direction.

 

I tried to be neutral in this thread and the one in March

(referenced above). My main interest in posting both of them was

(a) figuring out what it is about digital that bothers people so

much when they draw a line in the sand (as B&W did in April)

saying "No digital for me!" (it's often an objection to "digital

manipulation," though that's obviously not an issue in B&W's

case) and (b) exploring the ramifications of digital vis-a-vis fine

art prints (e.g., when you can make hundreds of identical copies

with little more effort than making one or two, what does it do to

the perception and value of the print? If "darkroom time" is no

longer an issue in the making of each additional print, should

the photographer only make 10 digital-based prints of an image

instead of 100, so that the "rarity" of each will drive up the price?).

 

That's what I was curious about.

[micah_marty1]

I got a friendly email today from an editor at B&W magazine:

 

"We should probably make clear that our announcement to stick

with 'traditional' photography stands. Prior to making this

decision, we had already committed to Neil Folberg, and we

wanted to honor this obligation."

 

(She also reiterated that the magazine has nothing against

digital, only that they want to address the traditional-photography

segment of the art world.)

 

So there 'tis. I thank her for the clarification.

[eugene_singer]

I'm pleased to see that someone from B&W is paying attention to the posts on this forum. Silver gelatin and alternative process prints are going to remain collectable long into the future. B&W makes their living by maintaining that segment of the fine art marketplace. Micah, I'm glad to see that you're still a wet darkroom guy. I appologize for getting my hackles up.

[chris_jordan3]

hey guys, chris jordan from Seattle checking in with a comment that might help clear up a misconception about digital printing, which is the idea that digital printing requires "no darkroom time."

 

my process goes like this: once i get an image drum-scanned at 600MB, i take approximately 50 hours to do the imaging work in photoshop. by the time it's ready to print, it might have 100 or more contrast masks that accomplish local contrast control in a way that darkroom printers can only dream about. on one image i did more than 30,000 mouse clicks, all at the pixel level-- with that one i edited the image pixel by pixel to reorganize the grain structure (i don't do that with every image though!).

 

then i save the file, and after that all prints are identical (that's something that darkroom printers also crave-- i know because i was one for years--so i presume there's no philosophical problem with achieving repeatability...). then, when I make a print, there's some computer setup time, loading the paper and checking that computer and printer are in synch, and after that, depending on the print size the printer takes between 10 minutes and 45 minutes to make the print. after that, i trim the print manually and mount it on backing board, which takes another 20 minutes or so. then it's signed, dated, numbered and embossed with my chop. From beginning to end, not including the photoshop imaging time, each print ends up taking approximately an hour to create.

 

now i realize there are lots of people out there with desktop printers who can make 100 prints in 10 minutes while they're watching "friends" on TV. but, if you compare yourself to them, you're comparing apples to oranges. the fair thing to do is compare dedicated darkroom B&W artists with their counterparts in the digital world, and if you do that, you will find equal levels of sophistication, craftsmanship, artistry, and time investment. and, the final results, though different, can both be visually stunning.

 

oh, and one other comment: i've been interested to see Neil Folberg's promotional materials about his new work-- he doesn't mention ANYTHING about his images being digital composites. they obviously are-- there's no photographic process that could get stationary stars along with fully-lit moonlight landscapes. but the way he talks about them, it sounds like he's just out photographing at night, and those are the images he gets. i suspect the stars in his photos are not even taken by him-- they look like they're shot with a telescope. i wonder if B&W magazine was a little misled, and that's why they committed to use his work despite their policy?

 

carry on,

 

~cj

[neil_folberg]

Friends,

 

Anyone needing inspiration should turn off all the lights they can,

shut down their computers, and step outside at night and look at

the stars in the night sky. That's how the photographs in

Celestial Nights (Aperture) came to be. if you need some advice

on how and what to look for and what it means, you might try

Timothy Ferris' new book, "Seeing in the Dark"

 

With regards to my photos, they are of course digital composites

printed on traditional silver- based paper. And I do indeed make

the star photographs myself with an ordinary medium format

camera and ordinary lenses, piggybacked on top of a telescope

so that the camera tracks the movement of the stars. While the

camera works, I just look up and enjoy the view of the Milky Way,

sometimes using a home made 10" telescope to get a closer

look for the 20 to 60 minutes it takes to expose the stars. These

photographs are fun to make and I hope they're fun to look at.

 

Neil Folberg