Re: B&W Printing Papers

[ireland@blazenet.net (Robert Brummett)]

>Robert,
>
>With the idea that we all learn to be more sensitive to differing
>sensibilities, I offer this:
>
>There is a popular conception that photogrphers who enjoy the comparitive
>aspects of photographic equipment can't be talented. It was fairly obvious
>that your sarcasm was aimed at that specific predjudice here. You were
>playing to cruelty and were responded to in-kind.
>
>DG
>
>
>>Ladies & Gentlemen of The LUG-
>>
>>I apologise to one and all for the unseemly tenor of a recent unfortunate
>>exchange between Mr. Small and myself. In all fairness, however, I would
>>point out that I was not the one calling names. In fact, my remark, which
>>apparently detonated Mr. Small, was directed at a post of Erwin Putts' and
>>had nothing to do with Mr. Small, who replied, inexplicably "WE do print"
>>as if I had been referring directly to him.
>>
>>I am unaware of prior instances of such out-and-out name calling on the
>>LUG. But I will say that in several very nearby recent posts Mr. Small took
>>it upon himself to be quite acerbic with posters other than myself on
>>subjects from deer to spam. Disagreement is the stuff and substance of
>>meaningful communication, but I think that in his response to me Mr. Small
>>is over the line.
>>
>>If Mr. Small has something he wishes to take up with me in such a
>>personalized and insulting fashion, I suggest he email me privately and not
>>waste the time and attention of this group.
>>
>>Robert

Danny,

I can't agree with you. The original post "B&W Printing Paqpers" was mine.
I was talking about recent experiences with a comparatively new material in
image-making situations. Mr. Puts's response was entirely quantitative,
didn't even mention the new material within his own frame of reference,
and did not agree with my subjective experience as a print-maker.

Weston used Kodabromide. What would we have thought of the that material in
'73 or '74? Am I the only photographer who has lamented the passing of
beloved, high-quality materials? I don't think so.

Mr. Puts's quantitative work stands or falls on its own merits. I have no
quarrel with him, nor did I accuse him of being "talentless" as you infer.
But if his data are correct there is apparently a difference in the
quantitative evaluation of a paper and the look, feel, presence of a print
on that material. Even though I don't own a reflective or transmission
densitometer, I have no trouble making that statement after working with
many different materials for the last thirty-some years. There's nothing
mystical about it. I have seen the changes, and I think they are there to
see. To say that there is no difference in papers over that period simply
does not square with my personal experience.

Sorry, but I think "playing to cruelty" is a bit of a reach.

Robert