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!