Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
The following quote from photographer Bruce Barnbaum’s article “Thoughts on Digital Photography” caught my attention, mainly because it implies that B&W digital methods may someday be able to produce the same “radiance” and “excellence” he exclusively associates with traditional silver prints.
He says:
“Nothing has the radiance of a finely crafted silver print. Nothing. Even after 20+ years of improved digital technology, the traditional silver print is still the epitome of b&w photographic excellence. Even with the many remarkable — truly remarkable — digital b&w prints that I have seen, the traditional silver print still ranks as the standard by which all others are judged. I recognize that this may change in the future, but as I write and update this article (most recently in March, 2008), it still remains true.”
I’m curious if — 20 months later — the LF photographers here, familiar with both methods, think Barnbaum’s claim “still remains true.” Or perhaps a little less true. :rolleyes:
Of course, that presumes you agreed with Barnbaum in the first place. You may not have.
Either way, I’d enjoy hearing your first thoughts — and your more-considered ones.
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
Even though I wouldn't put Bruce on my "A" list of fine print makers, and once had an
ugly e-mail brawl with him, I'd essentially agree with his statement. I've seen a
considerable number of black-and-white digital prints, and certainly understand the
practical appeal as an alternative to the darkroom, but visually - no way. The best of
them look crude by comparison to a well-made darkroom print. I even prefer 35mm prints made traditionally. It's the smoothness of the tones, the ability to produce that
subtle glow, etc. And I know a lot of people who would agree. But I am referring to
silver prints versus inkjet per se, not necessarily to hybrid digital techniques which
involve some kind of digital negative, like those frequently employed in platinum or other alternative techniques. And once you get into large format, there's absolutely
nothing comparable in digital capture itself, especially for black and white work. I
don't think twenty months alters the validity of the statement in any respect. Twenty
years might (or might not). I have albumen prints hanging on my walls that were
considered an obsolete technology when they were made around 1910, and they
completely blow away anything digital I've seen. Ever see an actual Julia Cameron
platinum print made in her chicken house in the Victorian era? Whether or not you
care for her subject-matter, the prints absolutely glow.
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
Wow, lots of similarities here.
I go back with BB to before email to an ugly US postal service brawl with the fella.
However, he is correct in his thinking that silver continues to trump anything made from the D word.
Cheers!
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
I'd probably say "nothing looks as much like a silver print as a silver print."
I love silver prints. Some of my images look best in silver.
But over the last few years I've started to really love ink prints. They look different from my silver prints ... for my tastes, they often look better. Maybe not for Barnbaum's.
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
At the margins of what is possible, subtleties beyond the skill of many to appreciate will inform these opinions.
Not everyone can fish in those waters, even if they wanted to.
So, I did a comparison more within my own means of production. I compared two 16x20 prints made from the same negative.
Print 1:
Oriental Seagull RC VC paper.
Omega D2 enlarger with condenser head. (Enlarger was set up with great care.)
Omega 4x5 negative carrier (glassless).
Peak grain focuser, the expensive kind.
Bausch and Lomb 139mm Ic Tessar enlarging lens.
Ilford Multigrade paper developer.
Toned in selenium.
Print 2:
Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper.
Epson 3800 printer, using the Advanced Black and White driver.
Epson V750 Scanner, at 2400 pixels/inch grayscale.
Vuescan.
Photoshop CS4.
Neither represents the state of the art by any means, but both are solid performers typical of what well-equipped amateurs might be able to use. Thus, I consider them to represent a real-world comparison relevant to amateurs who have to live with some compromises or give up on the activity altogether. Importantly, both represent about the same degree of compromise. It would not be fair, for example, to compare a print made back in the day on Gallerie Fine Art paper with the Epson Premium Glossy, or the Oriental RC paper against, say, Harman FB Glossy.
In terms of apparent sharpness when viewed using the bottom lens on my trifocals, I can tell no difference between the two. The Epson print does not display false edges, fake detail, or any other artifact that would make its rendering of detail different from the silver print. I call this a draw. Both display exception detail, as one would expect from a 16x20 print from 4x5.
In terms of the richness of the blacks--the Epson print shows a bit more richness.
In terms of the cleanliness of the whites--they are the same. The Epson paper isn't as reflective where there is no ink deposit as where there is, and this is a flaw. I'll give this one to the old silver print.
In terms of gradation--I can't see a difference.
In terms of visualization, here is where the Epson print goes well beyond the old silver print. I was able to achieve much closer to my visualization using reasonable techniques. I might have needed a mask to achieve the some of the same results on the silver print, or a negative made better in the first place. The Epson print, benefiting as it does from the greater power of Photoshop, gets closer to my original visualization than does the enlarger print.
Thus, I conclude that at levels slightly below the state of the art, the Epson print is every bit the equal of the silver print overall, and the digital process in the end provides a bit more control than the traditional process.
Rick "offering a practical comparison" Denney
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
To me digital B&W look about as good as Resin Coated paper from the 80's. They still have a long way to go.
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
I had a chance to see quite a few of Bruce's prints about a year ago, both large and small, at the Rymer Gallery here in Nashville and I can say without a doubt that he is a remarkable photographer and printer. They were simply fantastic inspiring prints.
As to the topic. I agree with Bruce and Drew, 20 months hasn't changed anything. Digital printing is good but it hasn't been able to capture that BW fibre print feel yet. Behind glass on a wall in typical room light is another story.
I tend to think about this particular issue in relation to music recording technology. Most people can't hear tones above 18Khz, so a CD playing back at a sample rate of 44.1khz and a bit depth of 16 should cover the entire audible range...wrong. Even untrained ears can tell the difference between 44.1khz 16 bit recordings and say a 196khz 24bit high resolution recording. There are many reasons this is so, but the main one is that you need to dramatically over sample the input to accurately reproduce it, somehow we can feel that inaudible information and it changes our perception of the music.
Lot's of top recordings are still tracked to analog, because it sounds good, not necessarily better than digital just good. Lot's of photographers still shoot LF and print wet because it looks good. Done and Done for me.
BW Digital printing is still an infant. Like digital audio in 1996 or so, give it 10 to 15 years and then we'll be talking. By then I will be dumping my 4x5 for a 1000mp canon that shoots in 3D. This is not to say that there aren't great digital prints being done now, but have you heard the remastered Beatles collection? I mean it just sounds better.
And that's not to mention digital is expensive. I can print a 40x50 for $50 including film and chemicals, and that's if I screw it up twice and have to toss two sheets of paper. You can't even get a drum scan for that!
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
The best of the silver papers are long gone (Agfa Portriga, Ilford Galerie, Kodak Elite and Medalist), and the current Inkjet papers and inks are greatly improved and getting better.
We have reached a state where some silver prints are "better" and some Inkjet prints are "better." But it's clear which way the wind is blowing.
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill_1856
The best of the silver papers are long gone
That's what Gregory Heisler says in the video presentation referred to in the current thread on his old employer, Arnold Newman. As Heisler puts it, and I'm paraphrasing: "There was a time when the papers had about 65 pounds of silver in them, and it wasn't possible, even when I was working for Newan, to make equivalent prints". Heisler worked for Newman decades ago.
Re: Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
I think if Bruce spent a lifetime beating the last drop out of inkjet prints, shooting for their look and sweating over them, he would likely say the same thing in reverse.