Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    184

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    Having now read the article in View Camera, I feel able to comment ;

    (i) When photography first appeared, it distinguished itself from the aesthetic of fine art by the fact that an image was readily reproducible. I really do not understand this new view, that has recently appeared by stealth, that the art of the print is all. This trivialises the other aspects of the image (exposure, development), which are equally valid, and most importantly of all, visualisation. The terms of the current wet v. inkjet debate are quite ridiculous ; in this and other recent threads on this board, no-one has once mentioned what drives them to visualise and create prints in the first place. The fact that I use an inkjet based approach is really irrelevant - what is important is what I am trying to convey in the image, and the aesthetic that I want to develop. All my equipment is merely a means to an end. By all means have a debate about the relative merits of differnet technical approaches, but don't pretend that this is anything more than a technical discussion, and please don't make wholly specious arguments about the relationship between a photographer and the print in support of a particular point of view.

    (ii)The article itself demonstrates again some of the naivity of the editor of View Camera. I really don't know or care if Mr De Wolfe has a commercial interest in Piezography, but this should have been made clear, either way. More importantly, the article doesn't actually say anything of substance ; it would have been better to have had a detailed article comparing a wet print to a piezography inkjet print, to an inkjet print made using other methods (e.g. using Lyson inks), to a platinum print. Then we could have had different views on the technical aspects of different appraoches, which photographers could have used in furthering their own technique. Instead we got an article that offers nothing but an endorsement without any facts to back that up.

  2. #42

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    The commercial interest that Mr. DeWolfe has is that he teaches workshops in digital printing. Those who teach workshops usually don't offer comprehensive instructions in magazine articles.

    He currently uses Piezography, but in the past has also used and written about MIS and Lyson inksets in the following article:

    http://www.cameraarts.com/ARCDIG.HTM

    Mr. DeWolfe is not alone in his opinion that Piezography now offers the best product for B&W digital printing.

  3. #43

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    I've looked at digital prints and indeed they can be beautiful, but when compared to a fine print on Azo, they did not quite hold up. Alred Stieglitz said, "If you place the imperfect next to the perfect. people will see the difference between the one and the other. But if you offer the imperfect alone, people are only too apt to be satisfied by it." That's not irrelevant here. To compare, you have to look at them both together.

    Michael A. Smith

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    55

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    No offense Michael, but I tend to think that Stieglitz's comment may actually be irrelevant when one is talking about which process an individual artist feels represents his work best.

    AZO is simply YOUR preference for YOUR work. I know platinum printers that would argue that platinum is superior, and presumably, George feels that Piezography is the process that perfects his work. I wouldn't argue with you if you told me that you feel digital prints of YOUR work don't match up well with your preferred process, but you can't use that to declare that the medium is somehow substandard or inferior.

    George is comapring his experience with traditional processes to digital, and he feels he gets superior results with quadtone inks. He is trying to create his own vision, so who can argue with him?

  5. #45

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    Tim, although I also find Michael's post a little self centered I have to disagree with you and I CAN argue with DeWolfe! You apparently did not read the article in ViewCamera, in it DeWolfe states that piezography is the equal of platimum printing and better than ANY silver print! If he had said " I feel piezography is the best medium to express MY art" then I would have no problem with him, and/or you, but he actually states how much better piezography is than any other medium, so c'mon, how can you defend this position? Since DeWolfe teaches workshops with this system I get the feeling he is just trying to drum up exitement for the process so that people will take his course by making these outrageous statements. Reminds me of the snake oil salesmen of yore!

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    55

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    Jorge - My understanding was that George claimed Piezography was equal to platinum, and superior to silver from a TONAL RANGE standpoint. If George is making the outright claim that Piezography is simply a superior process, then I agree with you. He would be making the same type of statement that Michael made.

    I have no problem with those who make comparisons between specific aspects of various processes, especially when they are able to provide something to back up their conclusion. For example, though I think there are ways to combat the problem, I tend to agree with those who say that quad ink prints often lack the deep blacks of most wet processes. On the other hand, I do also happen to think that quad prints exhibit a smoother and more pleasing tonal range than traditional silver processes (though I don't agree that it beats platinum in that respect). I also can't argue with those who point to the lack of hard data regarding the archival expectations of quad prints.

    Blanket statements about a process being inferior (or superior) are rarely worth much in my opinion.

  7. #47

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    Tim, then we are in agreement. Actually I think with digital you do have better control of the local contrast and middle tonal ranges since it is so easy to build masks etc. Something that in the darkroom might take a few days, in the pc takes a few hours. With piezography the technology has not found a way to translate what people saw in the monitor to a hard copy. I think this is great but lets not get carried away and ask people to throw away the LF cameras!

  8. #48

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    29

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    Those interested in more discussion on this subject might look up a thread from last month (filed under "Digital" threads in this forum) called "Piezography: Ansel Adams and the Inkjet Print":

    http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005hny

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    184

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    Mr Feldman ; I don't think any of the points you are trying to make are valid. Those writing and editing articles in magazines endorsing specific products have a duty to back their statements up with facts, which has not occurred in this instance ; would you accept an article praising Nikon SLR's without any reference to Canon or Minolta?. DeWolfe's article is also accessible from inkjetmall.com, and I find it rather curious that it is simply reprinted wholesale in View Camera. Finally, those who teach workshops can and frequently do offer instructions, guidance, and perspective gained from experience in magazine articles ; if not, I wouldn't bother buying any magazines.

  10. #50

    Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

    FW,

    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.

    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.

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

    Cone vs MIS

    I don?t believe that there is a similar magnitude of difference between photographs taken by equivalent models of a Nikon and Canon.

    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.

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Questions about the View Camera Conference in Monterey
    By Darin Cozine in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23-Apr-2004, 11:35
  2. Questions for 2X3 view camera users
    By Mark Windom in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29-Jan-2002, 17:56
  3. Large Format Workshop w/ George DeWolfe
    By Mike Kravit in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-Dec-2001, 11:31
  4. DeWolfe Billingham bag. Which model?
    By abiggs in forum Gear
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29-Jul-2001, 00:09
  5. Questions About Eastman View Camera No. 33
    By Jeffrey_751 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28-Oct-1999, 23:30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •