"B&W" magazine says No to digital photographs

[Wayne]

What the hey. Grab nose, dive in.

>I have yet to meet anyone who is an expert at both, who disagrees

Chris- have you ever met an expert at *anything* who was willing to dis his own "craft"? of course not, so this is a meaningless statement.

I'm not trying to dis digital imaging here. however, I think that anyone trying to make the argument that moving one's fingers over mouse and keyboard and running to the Epson as "craftmanship" has their work cut out for them. probably best to focus on other arguments that make it a valid art form.

Michael. There are plenty of places that digital imaging is accepted and welcome. It is NOT the same (though still just as valid) as what we have come to know as photography over 150 years +. THAT fixer aroma is pretty darned obvious, and IMO it only hurts digital to not accept it. The argument that "oh its exactly the same as what you do" isnt working now, and I doubt it ever will.

[Daniel Taylor]

Black and White Magazine is a wonderful publication. Consider its audience though. Collectors and Galleries. The archival argument probably falls flat these days with the new materials and testing, but digital imaging threatens the existing limited-edition model currently in place. The idea of limited printing and value hierarchy within the sequence becomes moot. Or does it? I suppose photographers could print an edition and then delete the files, so perhaps the fact that all prints are identical ruffles the gallery feathers here?

[Chris Ellinger]

I agree with the premise that there is an essential difference between machine m ade objects, and those made one at a time by hand. I see the difference between digital prints and conventional prints to be similar to glassware made from mol ds, and glassware that is made one at a time by hand. Nice to see that there ar e others who perceive this difference.

[David Grandy]

Gee I thought that the idea was to get there, not how difficult the journey was.

[Jim Galli]

= intrinsic value = excellence. ?? These are ideas lost on a generation of instant everything. If everybody can get to the same place in 30 seconds or less by pushing a button, is there any value? Indeed it's the struggle that fine tunes the artisans and stimulates the brain to creativeness. We'll find out soon enough what taking that out of the equation will ultimately produce.

[Glenn Kroeger]

I find it difficult to believe that no digital processes are used in the printing of the magazine?

[james mickelson]

Just a question if I may. How many of you here get Black and White Magazine as a subscription or from the newstand?

[Bruce Wehman]

It's easy to see why collectors might be a little reluctant to embrace Digital: A negative can be destroyed and you can see, by examining the shreds, that it has indeed been destroyed.....Can't do that with Digital.

[Steve Gangi]

What is the big deal? This magazine will fill a niche, and the marketplace will decide its fate. It will specialize in film photography much like "Fly Fisherman" specializes in one form of fishing. Using this comparison, this does not mean that surf fishing or baitcasting are hated by "Fly's" owners. Likewise it does not mean Rasmussen hates digitial. So, if you want to read about digital, you don't buy B&W magazine, just like you don't buy Fly to find out about the latest/fastest bass boat. If you want to read about the latest Fenwick flyrod or where to get a few more Royal Wulffs, "Fly" is the magazine for you. There are already plenty of excellent magazines that cover digital very well. B&W just chooses not to. It's their right to decide what their magazine will cover, it's ridiculous for people who think digital is the "magic bullet" to get so excited just because he does not share their opinion (sounds too much like a mob yelling "Kill the heretic"). Personally, I find it very refreshing and entertaining.

[Amadou Diallo]

The passionate responses to the mag's position, both in print and on this and other online forums suggest that a large portion of B&W's readership are photographers, not collectors. I live in NYC, and digitally outputted prints are becoming more and more common in high- end galleries. When I ask, they tell me their clients care about "who did it" and "what it is", in that order.

If anyone's first thought when seeing an image is whether it's silver, platinum, or digital, the photographer has failed.

Amadou Diallo