I’ve been invited to take part in a group show of miniatures that will open in December at the Hult Center’s Jacobs Gallery.

Don’t have a lot of details just yet, but I’m thrilled. It will run December and January.

It will be a perfect place to unveil the small new hand colored digital black and white photos I’ve been working on this year.

The opening will be Friday, Dec. 10. Mark your calendars!

photo: Grape Leaves, hand colored digital black and white, 2010

I’m figuring out, at last, how to use digital black and white carbon prints for hand coloring.

Turns out the carbon pigment is well bound to the paper — mostly. So what you need to do is remove the loose particles.

About 30 seconds under cool running water and an all-over scouring with a paintbrush seems to do the trick without noticeably affecting the quality of the print. Most of the ink is tightly attached to the watercolor paper. You can see a trickle of loose ink  flow off the page, though.

I then dry the print and give it a spray of workable fixative before painting. That’s a step I would like to skip, if I can perfect the scrubbing; I hate the smell of fixative.

But the scrubbing works.

Painting on the watercolor paper is very different from painting on the smooth, non-absorbent surface of a traditional silver-gelatin print. It will take me a while to get used to the new process.

photo: Twilight in the garden, digital black and white, 2010

After a couple weeks of playing with it, I have to say that digital black and white is growing on me.

The proof, of course, is in the printing. And that has always been digital’s weak spot.

But let’s start with the strengths. Everyone pretty much knows the advantages that digital offers over film in terms of speed, spontaneity and flexibility. Let’s just say that extends, of course, to black and white. And especially so when you’re trying to learn and control a new process. Taking lots and lots of pictures is the only way to go. And that is what digital is all about.

Shooting at ISO 2500 gives something that looks a whole lot like grain, which I like.

Now the printing part. Messing around with my little Epson C88+ with its MIS continuous ink supply filled with Eboni carbon-pigment ink has been both frustrating and fun. Fun, because it’s cheap, spontaneous and unpredictable. Frustrating for many of the same reasons.

I’m continuing to buy good watercolor paper at the art supply house and cut it up into 7.3-by-10-inch pieces, giving me nine prints per full sheet. Which means really cheap, good quality paper. ($4.95 per sheet/nine pieces = 55 cents per almost 8×10.)   (That’s because it doesn’t say “photographic” or “inkjet” anywhere on or near it.)

My latest prints have been on Artistico + Fabriano hot-pressed 140 pound paper. It gives the best, deepest blacks I have found so far — and blacks are a challenge to this process — and clean, sharp images where I want them sharp.

The biggest problem I’ve had so far is that painting with acrylics on the prints causes the ink to smudge. Still need to work that out. Fixing with spray fixative works, more or less, but is smelly and unappealing. Next up, I’ll try washing the print first to remove loose ink particles.

There is so much to learn….

Oh, yes, Van Sant: I got over to the Schnitzer Museum this morning for a sneak peak at a new show of Polaroid photos by Andy Warhol and Gus Van Sant, still not installed. More on this later, but it was very cool to see what amounted to half an art show — Van Sant’s half — in something a bit smaller than a cigar box, on a table in the museum vault.

photo: Spring rain, digital black and white, 2010

I love this effect. And the neat thing about digital is that you get instant feedback on whether or not you’ve done it right.

On the other hand, I still haven’t figured out how to print digital BW so that the prints can be hand colored…. a longer topic for another post.

photo: Pear tree and moon, digital black and white, 2010

I’ve been keeping the printer busy with experiments in black and white. As you can see in the photo, I’m working out ways to make digital prints that — maybe — look something like the black and white prints I get in the darkroom. And, yes, it’s a steep curve. The material you can read online is over-technical, fussy and boring, for the most part.

On Saturday I went out in the woods and shot a roll of Tri-X on the Pentax LX; I also carried the K-7 and duplicated all 30 images, shot for shot, on the digital camera. (The lenses were fairly well matched in length: a 28mm f/2.8 on the LX and a 21mm f/3.2 on the K-7.)

I’m liking these first experiments. Initial reaction: Digital prints — at least the ones I make on watercolor paper — are sharper and cleaner, but don’t have the full dynamic range of darkroom prints. They’re also cheaper if you buy regular artist’s watercolor paper and cut it down and use non-manufacturer ink, like the MIS continuous inking system I bought.

Initial reactions to the MIS system: Like all things digital, it’s fussy. But, with excellent help from the support folks at inksupply.com, I got the thing up and running and it’s only stumbled a couple times.

I especially like having a big stack of paper and big bottle of ink to play with, without having sunk much money into it.

More as I learn more.

PS: You can see in the photo that I’m beginning to hand color some digital prints. That, too, is very different.