Not sure if this topic has been brought up elsewhere on the board, but I thought this might be the appropriate thread to ask.

What do you all, as film photographers, think of Black and White Magazine's most recent edition featuring their 'change of heart'? They are now including digital photography/images in future editions/publications.

I'm curious more than anything as I feel that the market is more than saturated with 'digital' literature. Other than one or two other magazine's that remain 'film only', this was one of the few that I truly love to read because of their dedication to black and white film.

Just a bit disheartened about their 'change'. Not so much that they had been 'excluding' digital photographers as they state, rather dedicating a resource for the film shooters that are still around. My husband thinks it's not so much a change of heart...rather succumbing to advertisers' pressure.

I'd love your thoughts and insight...just wanting to see how others feel.

Thanks!

Oops! Found the discussion on this topic below. Glad it's not just me who feels a bit 'betrayed' or saddened by the change.

I totally agree with you!
And I`ve recently ordered it here in Germany for that reason, for the dedication to B&W film!!

.

Just a bit disheartened about their 'change'. Not so much that they had been 'excluding' digital photographers as they state, rather dedicating a resource for the film shooters that are still around. My husband thinks it's not so much a change of heart...rather succumbing to advertisers' pressure.


I got the impression that their change of attitude (or heart, if you will) was due to pressure from the legions of photographers who want(ed) to apply for the single image issue and whose work includes more digital steps than would otherwise be allowed. From the point of view of collectors and dealers, what the market wants, the market gets. It's perhaps disheartening, but true, that many exceptionally fine photographers are incorporating digital techniques at some or all stages of their work and that's a trend that is not going to reverse itself...period! I'm thinking, for instance, of Huntington Witherill whose work has gone from the totally traditional, to digital and now, at least I think I read this, to color after a career with black and white. Photographers of his caliber are simply not going to be ignored just because of the process they have evolved into using. As a Texas dealer explained at the AIPAD show this past February, he will exhibit digital work when buyers want to pay for it, and that's coming far sooner than I, for one, wish it would.

Black and White photographer here in the UK has never made such a distinction. It features many digital b&w photographs, and prints articles on digital techniques, but the bulk of the magazine is still film based traditional photography.
At the end of the day it's the end result that counts, not how you did it.
I still believe that there is a certain look and quality that you get with the traditional process, or perhaps following hybrid processes. I hope that, for many people continues to be the case.

Photographers of his caliber are simply not going to be ignored just because of the process they have evolved into using.

For now anyways, but give it 5 to 10 years when their level of image quality can be produced by a 5 year old with a cellphone. Then where will their 'caliber' be? I believe IBM even has a prototype video camera that captures all video in 8megapixel stills, eventually this will get to 50 megapixel video, people will video for hours, then pick and crop what looks like a good still, then print it out with startling clarity. The caliber of current digital fine art photographers is a fantasy world that will end very soon.. Just my 2cents

"What do you all, as film photographers, think of Black and White Magazine's most recent edition featuring their 'change of heart'? They are now including digital photography/images in future editions/publications."

Apparently, what we traditional photographers think is not a consideration to the magazine.

As I believe has been said by others - what is the difference between a fine-art digital print and a digitally printed poster? If the diff is minimal, as a collector why would I pay more thatn $20 for a digital print? Just because the creator of the digital print swares that he will limit his number of prints, that isn't very re-assuring to a collector who is banking on limited availability. I suspect that art gallery owners who represent photographers who are going digital are pushing B&W Mag to accept digital. It will be interesting to see if collectors become lemmings - after all some of the stuff they collected in the past is now recognized as trash.

For now anyways, but give it 5 to 10 years when their level of image quality can be produced by a 5 year old with a cellphone. Then where will their 'caliber' be? I believe IBM even has a prototype video camera that captures all video in 8megapixel stills, eventually this will get to 50 megapixel video, people will video for hours, then pick and crop what looks like a good still, then print it out with startling clarity. The caliber of current digital fine art photographers is a fantasy world that will end very soon.. Just my 2cents

There are some amazing new codecs for motion depiction, but their performance is realized only in ideal subjects by undemanding audiences.

There are real limits related to sensor size, but i'm willing to be enlightened. What technological miracles are you aware of that can makr a cell phone's tiny sensor capture as much fidelity as 6x6cm film, oy 4x5 film?

Regardless of how digital progresses, it is still too early to cave in, give up on film, unless one is a hungry publisher.

As I believe has been said by others - what is the difference between a fine-art digital print and a digitally printed poster?

fine art enthusiastically suffers any indignity neccessary to become known

There are some amazing new codecs for motion depiction, but their performance is realized only in ideal subjects by undemanding audiences.

There are real limits related to sensor size, but i'm willing to be enlightened. What technological miracles are you aware of that can makr a cell phone's tiny sensor capture as much fidelity as 6x6cm film, oy 4x5 film?

Regardless of how digital progresses, it is still too early to cave in, give up on film, unless one is a hungry publisher.
It's hard to know what breakthroughs are right around the corner. I've seen talk of new lenses designed to mimic an insects eye, each section of light then relayed to an individual hi-res sensor which is part of a larger array, then all the many sensor images stitched with software. I'm not sure they'll ever be able to top large format due to the physical limitations they will come up against, but there are some clever scientists who are trying..

I agree with what Doug says "what is the difference between a fine-art digital print and a digitally printed poster?". I think most of the market also agrees, that's why you see a lot of digital prints being stuck at poster prices and silver gelatin prints going for $150 and up..

There are real limits related to sensor size, but i'm willing to be enlightened. What technological miracles are you aware of that can makr a cell phone's tiny sensor capture as much fidelity as 6x6cm film, oy 4x5 film?



You missed Sean's point completely, it is not the fact that a cell phone has the same quality as a MF or LF neg, although some think some current cameras already do, it is not far fetched that cell phones might have it in the not so distant future.

Sean`s point was that of the current crop of photgrapher that have gone digital, many have seen or printed or know what a good print should look like. Presumably in the future if all that is available are ink jet posters, the quality, look and excellence of traditional and more emphatically silver printing will be lost. A very good example is pt/pd, back in the 70s and 80s few people had seen pt/pd prints since silver printing took over, as a consequence some people called pt/pd prints done in the 80s beautiful, when in reality they were really crappy, but they had not point of reference to compare. In contrast today people are doing great work in pt/pd, much much better than what was presented when it resurged.

Will a cell phone have the quality of a MF or LF negative someday? who knows, but I would not be surprised if it came to pass.

...
At the end of the day it's the end result that counts, not how you did it...

I disagree totally with that statement. For me and many others - as practitioners, artists, craftspersons - whatever you wish to call us, the process is at least as important as the end result. It may be different for the audience, but no so for the maker.

And when I assume the role of audience, I have yet to see any digital print where I haven't thought to myself: "I wish I could see this as a real photograph", i.e., silverprint, Pt/Pd, etc. Color inkjets on matte papers seem to be the best of the lot but then I never really liked type-C prints because of how fugitive they are/were and the fact that I'm into gum bichromate printing which, although not as accurate, is stable and open to artistic interpretation in terms of surface and palette.

Joe

And when I assume the role of audience, I have yet to see any digital print where I haven't thought to myself: "I wish I could see this as a real photograph", i.e., silverprint, Pt/Pd, etc.

Then you are not 100% happy with the end result.

... And when I assume the role of audience, I have yet to see any digital print where I haven't thought to myself: "I wish I could see this as a real photograph", JoeMaybe for "practitioners, artists and crafts persons" but the general buying public don't give a dam. We are in an age of mass produced disposable art where the masses will buy a peice of work that will probably be thrown out next time they re-decorate.

Maybe for "practitioners, artists and crafts persons" but the general buying public don't give a dam. We are in an age of mass produced disposable art where masses will buy a peice of work that will probably be thrown out next time they re-decorate.

who cares? society has always been that way. dispairing over it is a waste of time.

who cares? society has always been that way. dispairing over it is a waste of time. I agree, no point in dispairing at all. I think we should spend more time enjoying our photography for ourself and forget about what the rest of the population think. Film and digital is here to stay the same as oils, crayons, charcoal and the other mediums. I don't hear any of the many artists that live around these parts complaining and winging about what others use as their medium.

I don't hear any of the many artists that live around these parts complaining and winging about what others use as their medium.

Fortunately they don't have people creating work with crayons and labelling it oil paintings.. :p

Fortunately they don't have people creating work with crayons and labelling it oil paintings.. :pSean some of the galleries are now moving towards not labelling the medium at all on paintings etc. All the galleries use to label as oil, acrylic, watercolour, but now it's up the buyer to ask if they are really interested and I'm told that many people only ask if it's an original or limited edition.

Maybe for "practitioners, artists and crafts persons" but the general buying public don't give a dam. We are in an age of mass produced disposable art where the masses will buy a peice of work that will probably be thrown out next time they re-decorate.
This might be true Tony, but I feel the care and attention one puts into making a print shows in the final product. IMO it is far different testing paper for exposure scale, choosing a subject, lighting qualities, that will be best reperesented by the chosen reproduction medium and then taking the time to print, dodge, burn, make an emulsion and coat it etc, etc, than just snapping the picture and fixing it later in PS.
I envion that in 30 or 40 years we will have "art" susbcriptions where you will pay your cable or sat company to download images to your flat LCD "pictures" hanging on your wall, but I know, even then nothing will equal a hand made print mounted and matted....

This might be true Tony, but I feel the care and attention one puts into making a print shows in the final product. IMO it is far different testing paper for exposure scale, choosing a subject, lighting qualities, that will be best reperesented by the chosen reproduction medium and then taking the time to print, dodge, burn, make an emulsion and coat it etc, etc, than just snapping the picture and fixing it later in PS.
I envion that in 30 or 40 years we will have "art" susbcriptions where you will pay your cable or sat company to download images to your flat LCD "pictures" hanging on your wall, but I know, even then nothing will equal a hand made print mounted and matted....

Frankly, who gives a rat's rump what the 'masses' want to buy. Anyone who would take the time, not to mention seek out the opportunity, to actually hold in their hands a really well made hand crafted photograph cannot help but to notice there's a galactic gulph between a poster and what they're looking at. At that moment, that person or those people cease to be a member of the 'masses'.

Brooks Jenson blogged an essay on the ever increasing quality of printed photographic reproductions which lead to the notion that there ultimately won't be a perceptible difference between the repro and the original. Poopoo, kaka!!! Having seen the actual prints, for instance, by Mark Citret and his published book reproductions, I 'm willing to concede that they're close, (which is all to the good, btw) but they're just plain not interchangable. Likewise, at the Large Format Conference in Springfield, having seen the work of an Aussie photographer in both gelatin silver print form and his book's iteration of the same images, there was a clear difference. The 'masses' will buy whatever they can afford and appreciate (and God bless'em if it's a fine art photographic reproduction), but there will always be a sizable minority who just won't settle for 'seconds'.

What is more important, the Artist or his work? The ability to mass produce doesn't hurt either and generally increases the value of the original. There always will be an original and there will always be reproductions. The argument between mediums is meaningless. I'm not sure a medium ever made an artist great.

Maybe for "practitioners, artists and crafts persons" but the general buying public don't give a dam. We are in an age of mass produced disposable art where the masses will buy a peice of work that will probably be thrown out next time they re-decorate.

Well, who are you doing your photography for? The masses? Collectors? Yourself?

Guess who I'm doing it for.

Joe

Thank you all! So much of the sentiment posted is exactly how I feel.

Well, who are you doing your photography for? The masses? Collectors? Yourself?

Guess who I'm doing it for.

EXACTLY!

To validate much of what has been said here...you can go into any department store these days (even your 'high end' shops) and find relatively inexpensive needlework and embroidered pieces that have been machine-created or assembly-line produced. Yet I go to an antique store and find the old, tattered and flawed needlepoint samplers completed by hand and the prices are considerably more expensive. There is validity to something done by hand rather than mass processed. It has to do with uniqueness and originality, not just the end result. Even though these old samplers may be worn, tattered and missing theads and even portions of the piece, their classic nonetheless. That's why I still shoot black and white film and sew by hand.

Most people have no concept of what goes into the creation of a piece of artwork, be it painting, sculpture, photograph or symphony. (And while most of us would cringe at the suggestion that we are artists, when we work at producing a successful photograph, we are making art.)

Does anyone remember Ted Orland's 60's/70's era poster "...Compendium of Photographic Truths"? One of my favorites: "When your friends finally realize that you are a true artist, committed to making sensitive and meaningful images, they will ask you to photograph their wedding."

What distinguishes traditional photography from the computer-based virtual photographic imagery is the craftsmanship involved in the creation. If software is used to replace craftsmanship, it cheapens the value of the end product, IMHO.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the end products are identical in every way that can be perceived, the fact that someone actually worked with their hands to make a photograph increases its value to me. That someone is able to press a "print" button on a computer and produce a limitless supply of identical reproductions is not the same.