PDA

View Full Version : 6 years......with inkjet



Kirk Gittings
18-Nov-2011, 16:15
Given a couple of related threads recently on inkjet, I thought I would share this experience. Six years ago I started fooling around with digital ink jet prints. A friend of mine was an early practitioner showing around the country and I felt his prints showed real promise.

In the ensuing years I have put a ton of time into this process as the process itself has matured. I also continued doing silver prints. Knowing what a fine B&W print looks like helped drive my quest. This year I put about 5 months into making 5 16x20 Piezography prints for the Contemplative Landscape show in Santa Fe. this was the highest profile show I have been in for along time and will be up for 14 months in the premier exhibition space in Santa fe. 4 of the 5 print well on gelatin silver and one won't and needed a digital solution-so that one print drove the production of the entire suite. I have shown digital prints side by side with GS over these years at less important shows.

I worked on them so long that I delivered them 6 weeks past the hard deadline. I wanted them to be perfect, which of course they never were-though I reached a point where I was about 95% satisfied with the results and that my final issues with the prints were limited largely by the mat inkset. At one point I completely started over and had Lenny Eiger drum scan all the film.

Now I am an old hand at this-this is my 80th exhibit and generally I think if I am happy thats all that matters. In this case though I had more anxiety than I have had for years about an exhibit. I had been submerged in these prints for so long that I was worried that I couldn't judge them objectively......

With some trepidation I delivered them to the curator-anxious because i was worried that all my excuses about needing more time (because the prints weren't perfect yet) would seem like hollow excuses if she didn't think the prints weren't stunning. Well she thought the prints were stunning and thanked me profusely in writing for my dedication to her vision for this show. That was one sort of emotional hurdle to cross. Today was another.

One of my photo heros over the last 40 years is Ed Ranney (http://www.photoeye.com/gallery/forms2/bio.cfm?id=16689), an institution in New Mexico photography (who amongst other successes was featured in Szarkowski's Mirrors and Windows). Today I had to give a joint talk with Ed at the exhibit to some students. Ed is more of a fellow traveler than a friend and he is a hardcore 5x7 film/gelatin-silver guy. Ed is also a no bullshit kind of guy and says exactly what he thinks. I was very curious what he thought of the prints. Well he loved them and quizzed me in depth about the process. It was a nice affirmation of my own thoughts on the prints.

So......why am i sharing this? Because today....finally (without any question way back in the recesses of my ego) the viability of injet as a quality b&w print medium is totally settled for me. I like to think that I am beyond the need of affirmation of colleagues, but in truth I think I'm not. To some extent that thinking is just a bit of defensiveness.

gth
18-Nov-2011, 17:26
What was the biggest obstacle or problem you feel you had to overcome to get to this level of your ink jet process?

What is size print and negative?

mdm
18-Nov-2011, 19:42
Good on you.

Bill Burk
18-Nov-2011, 21:28
When you are working in the realm of beautiful data or beautiful negative, it should not matter how the output occurs, the result should matter most.

Once
19-Nov-2011, 06:17
So you like inkjet prints, right?

Gary Tarbert
19-Nov-2011, 06:40
There is no workable darkroom in our house even film processing is awkward (but that is not going!!!!) sold the 5x4 enlarger , and now i have no choice but to make it work, And the prints i am producing from my current set up are amongst the best i have ever done!!Goodbye Durst 1000 . Cheers gary

cdholden
19-Nov-2011, 06:58
So......why am i sharing this? Because today....finally (without any question way back in the recesses of my ego) the viability of injet as a quality b&w print medium is totally settled for me. I like to think that I am beyond the need of affirmation of colleagues, but in truth I think I'm not. To some extent that thinking is just a bit of defensiveness.

Like so many other tools, this now works for you. For me, ink will always take a back seat to silver and other alt processes. I have not put in the time that you have in trying to bring forth an inkjet replacement.
Congratulations on your show. It sounds like the greatest reward was the personal achievement. If you can make a living at it, that's good. It's so much better with personal satisfaction.
Only 20 more shows to go and you hit another milestone!

Peter De Smidt
19-Nov-2011, 07:18
Congratulations!

Robert Hall
19-Nov-2011, 08:15
Congratulations on the show and on finding a new tool you can rely on for making fine prints.

I have on occasion brought prints to a show in mixed silver/ink formats and been greeted with questions of which was which from people I have considered "in the know". It pleased me to no end.

I like the idea of having multiple tools in the toolbox to render my vision on to paper. I think they are both viable as mediums. I have my prejudices, they are mine, and I am comfortable with that. Will I reach a point where I choose one over the other? Don't know. I will cross (burn) that bridge when I come to it.

R

George Pappas
19-Nov-2011, 10:42
Congratulations Kirk. I am in the midst of a similar process (on a different scale, for sure) and am having glimmers of similar results.

I am curious; have you tried K6/K7 glossy inks? If so, why did you choose matte for the show? In my trials and tribulations, one if the issues I had with matte is that the tonal range did not have the depth of Silver - this greatly affected some images though not others.

K6/K7 Glossy turned out to be the ticket for me. It has its own issues, but they were worth it for the result.

Love to hear your thoughts on this.

George

bob carnie
19-Nov-2011, 11:39
Somewhere I read someone's rational why they preferred silver gelatin to ink prints.

Basically the ink prints , specifically glossy ,image detail would sit on the surface , rather than like silver gelatin sink into the emulsion.

Thus giving the viewer a different look, I prefer silver for this reason and agree with this persons take on the difference. The glossy ink prints that I make all do exhibit this difference . I prefer the look silver print.
Without this slight difference I believe ink gloss prints can be made to look every bit as vibrant as silver prints and vice versa.

One could argue that this sitting on the surface is not the case with matt prints, and I would agree with this as I have seen fantastic prints made at Cone Editions and compared to the silver prints of the same file that I made on my lambda, I would be hard pressed to pick a favourite version.

The only difference would be of course the Dmax that silver gloss paper will always win hands down over a matt ink print, and I do know someone will say that perceived black is what one is looking for, but I actually am talking about a real black that silver printers love.

A bit of an aside, personally I am more confident of silvers longevity than the ink prints, (my opinion only here) with no scientific data to back up my opinion, and this too is a factor for me when picking materials to work with.

paulr
19-Nov-2011, 13:11
Thanks for posting, Kirk. I'm glad to hear you're acquainted with Ed; he taught the first (only) photo class I ever took, back in 1989, at your daughter's college. Your description of him matches my memory. I thought he was a good teacher at the time, but in retrospect he seems like a great teacher. He taught WAY over our heads. Half the time I had no idea we what he was talking about, but he managed to keep me riveted nonetheless. Over the next several years, some of the perplexities he planted in my head went off like time bombs. "THAT'S what Ed meant!"

I'd be surprised if he remembered me at all, but if you run into him again, please let him know I remember him fondly. Among other things, I've never seen anyone set up a 5x7 camera and fire the shutter as quickly as him. Probably from years of photographing in places where the light and the sky change so quickly. I look like a zombie under the dark cloth in comparison.

Some day I'd like to quiz you a little about you Piezography set up. I absolutely love the process, but it's been a while since I've printed and my inks are way past the expiry date and I think my printer is hosed. Next time I to do a bw printing session I'll be starting from scratch. It may be a misconception that this process is fundamentally lower maintenance than the darkroom ...

Tyler Boley
19-Nov-2011, 13:54
When you are working in the realm of beautiful data or beautiful negative, it should not matter how the output occurs, the result should matter most.

Excellent point, and while I'm sure no one can disagree, I have to add that some processes just don't have inherent exquisite properties available for a master worker to bring out, no matter how great the printer, the image, the negative, etc etc.. Just my opinion.

So, a point well worth underlining here, is that some of these ink processes do, in fact, have the ability to rise above the norm into the realm of the exceptional, in the right hands, the right image, etc.. Many still are not aware of this simply because there's little work of this status available to see, and a great deal of mediocre inkjet work everywhere.

I love great silver, platinum, and many other processes, each capable of something amazing. And now, I also love ink, it can and does rise to that level.

Great post Kirk, congratulations on the show. I hope in addition to the response your work deserves, the prints will also help raise awareness that amazing photographic objects can be made with new processes given the kind of commitment the tradition of photography demands.
Tyler

Once
19-Nov-2011, 16:21
<snip>

Great post Kirk, congratulations on the show. I hope in addition to the response your work deserves, the prints will also help raise awareness that amazing photographic objects can be made with new processes given the kind of commitment the tradition of photography demands.
Tyler

Indeed, the world is now a better place to live in. Everyone can sleep better now. The art is safe again even in the constantly changing world.

Tyler Boley
19-Nov-2011, 16:45
If you are trying to make a point, I guess I missed it, and am actually interested...
The potential loss of photographic standards is a huge issue to me and others, perhaps my rhetoric is silly... but there it is. So if you take some issue with the comments it would be interesting to hear, at least within the context of Kirk's interesting initial post.
Tyler

Wayne Lambert
19-Nov-2011, 21:38
Perhaps sombody can help me here. I have spent 2 hours trying to post a fairly long reply. I typed it once as "Post quick reply." I was logged in. When I pressed the button to "Post quick reply" the screen said I was not authorized, not logged in (at the top it showed me as still logged in). It said to refresh and log in. When I did I lost everything, all disappeared. The second time I wrote it on "Go advanced." When I pressed the button the same thing happened. Lost everything, all disappeared. 2 hours work---pretty discouraging---I do type slow. Any suggestions? Is the site broken?
Wayne

Wayne Lambert
19-Nov-2011, 21:52
I guess I could do a paragraph and post, do a paragraph and post...sort of serialize it.
Wayne

Merg Ross
19-Nov-2011, 22:23
Perhaps sombody can help me here. I have spent 2 hours trying to post a fairly long reply. I typed it once as "Post quick reply." I was logged in. When I pressed the button to "Post quick reply" the screen said I was not authorized, not logged in (at the top it showed me as still logged in). It said to refresh and log in. When I did I lost everything, all disappeared. The second time I wrote it on "Go advanced." When I pressed the button the same thing happened. Lost everything, all disappeared. 2 hours work---pretty discouraging---I do type slow. Any suggestions? Is the site broken?
Wayne

Interesting, I lost my reply to Kirk last evening. I only make one attempt at a post that disappears, and I had nice things to say! It was my first experience of this kind in ten years of posting to the forum. Have there been changes recently?

Wayne Lambert
19-Nov-2011, 22:44
I've been twice to the show that includes Kirk's photographs. It's an excellent show in a large space in a very prestigious venue---the Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe. Kirk's prints are just inside the door---the first photographs you see when you walk in. They are large prints and are memorable for all the right reasons. Congratulations, Kirk! My favorite of the five is "Private Altar" which seems to glow with an inner light.

My aesthetic experience with digital prints is similar to Kirk's---I have come to admire them. It took me a while because earlier (as some of you may recall) I had concerns about wholesale retouching of images in Photoshop. Now I see that most LF photographers (all of us, of course!) adhere to some kind of code of ethics and pretty much limit Photoshop manipulations to contrast adjustments, dodging, and burning.

Last year I wanted to print in platinum/palladium some 4x5- and 8x10-inch in-camera negatives that I had originally made for gelatin-silver printing. The contrast of the negatives was just too low for pt/pd. To increase the contrast I intensified some with selenium toner and some with the silver intensifier sold by Photographers' Formulary. Both processes worked well. The silver intensifier is especially good for adding considerable contrast. However, I overdid a couple of negatives in the silver intensifier and got nervous about continuing with some favorite negatives. So I thought I would see what I could do with these weaker negatives and digital printing. I scanned the 8x10 and 4x5 negatives with an Epson V700 scanner and made some prints using Cone Piezography K7 inks (sepia) on various matte papers and some prints using Epson Ultrachrome K3 inks on Epson Hot Press Natural paper. With the Epson inks I used ABW to adjust the ink color to a "palladium brown" which I like. I didn't enlarge the prints; all were printed at a 1:1 ratio. I was amazed at the print quality, both the prints I made with the Cone inks and those made with the Epson inks. All of the digital prints are sharper (bare tree branches against the sky kind of thing) than pt/pd contact prints on smooth Weston paper and the tonal quality is excellent---for example, very smooth skin tones. I attribute (with no furthur experimental evidence) at least part of the excellent print quality to the fact that I scanned large negatives and printed at a 1:1 ratio. Personally, I admire those made with the Epson inks more than those made with the Cone inks probably because of the ink color and the smooth surface and warm color of the Epson Hot Press Natural paper.

Finally, for the past couple of months, in my new gallery, I have had the opportunity to view the Epson ink prints and a group of palladium (Na2 process) prints side by side in good lighting (about 25 of each type). My considered opinion is that the two types are virtually indistinguishable (behind acrylic glazing) at normal and extended viewing distances. Viewed close, the digital prints are sharper. Virtually indistinguishable, with one caveat: As one of my visitors (a non-photographer) remarked after viewing the prints, "The platinum/palladium prints just seem to be...um...um...a little "richer". I agree, it's very subjective, indefinable, but the platinum/palladium prints do seem to be a little...um..."richer." I'll leave it at that.

Wayne

Wayne Lambert
19-Nov-2011, 22:55
Third time is the charmed. Merg, this time I checked "Remember me" next to "User name" and used the "Post quick reply." Also, I tried to do high-speed hunt and peck.
Wayne

gevalia
20-Nov-2011, 07:57
Wayne,
I just started printing last month with a respectable printer (3880) using ABW. I'm wondering if you could provide the adjustments you use to get paladium brown. I'm still in the experimental stage with these k3 inks and printer.

Regards,
Ron


I've been twice to the show that includes Kirk's photographs. It's an excellent show in a large space in a very prestigious venue---the Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe. Kirk's prints are just inside the door---the first photographs you see when you walk in. They are large prints and are memorable for all the right reasons. Congratulations, Kirk! My favorite of the five is "Private Altar" which seems to glow with an inner light.

My aesthetic experience with digital prints is similar to Kirk's---I have come to admire them. It took me a while because earlier (as some of you may recall) I had concerns about wholesale retouching of images in Photoshop. Now I see that most LF photographers (all of us, of course!) adhere to some kind of code of ethics and pretty much limit Photoshop manipulations to contrast adjustments, dodging, and burning.

Last year I wanted to print in platinum/palladium some 4x5- and 8x10-inch in-camera negatives that I had originally made for gelatin-silver printing. The contrast of the negatives was just too low for pt/pd. To increase the contrast I intensified some with selenium toner and some with the silver intensifier sold by Photographers' Formulary. Both processes worked well. The silver intensifier is especially good for adding considerable contrast. However, I overdid a couple of negatives in the silver intensifier and got nervous about continuing with some favorite negatives. So I thought I would see what I could do with these weaker negatives and digital printing. I scanned the 8x10 and 4x5 negatives with an Epson V700 scanner and made some prints using Cone Piezography K7 inks (sepia) on various matte papers and some prints using Epson Ultrachrome K3 inks on Epson Hot Press Natural paper. With the Epson inks I used ABW to adjust the ink color to a "palladium brown" which I like. I didn't enlarge the prints; all were printed at a 1:1 ratio. I was amazed at the print quality, both the prints I made with the Cone inks and those made with the Epson inks. All of the digital prints are sharper (bare tree branches against the sky kind of thing) than pt/pd contact prints on smooth Weston paper and the tonal quality is excellent---for example, very smooth skin tones. I attribute (with no furthur experimental evidence) at least part of the excellent print quality to the fact that I scanned large negatives and printed at a 1:1 ratio. Personally, I admire those made with the Epson inks more than those made with the Cone inks probably because of the ink color and the smooth surface and warm color of the Epson Hot Press Natural paper.

Finally, for the past couple of months, in my new gallery, I have had the opportunity to view the Epson ink prints and a group of palladium (Na2 process) prints side by side in good lighting (about 25 of each type). My considered opinion is that the two types are virtually indistinguishable (behind acrylic glazing) at normal and extended viewing distances. Viewed close, the digital prints are sharper. Virtually indistinguishable, with one caveat: As one of my visitors (a non-photographer) remarked after viewing the prints, "The platinum/palladium prints just seem to be...um...um...a little "richer". I agree, it's very subjective, indefinable, but the platinum/palladium prints do seem to be a little...um..."richer." I'll leave it at that.

Wayne

D. Bryant
20-Nov-2011, 08:41
Wayne,
I just started printing last month with a respectable printer (3880) using ABW. I'm wondering if you could provide the adjustments you use to get paladium brown. I'm still in the experimental stage with these k3 inks and printer.

Regards,
Ron

I'm sure Wayne has his own secret sauce but a good place to start with B&W ABW settings for the 3800/3880 is Eric Chan's website where he chronicles and documents his workflow and provides a large number of ICC profiles for various papers.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3880/abwprofiles.html

I used his information with my 3800 with great success.

Don Bryant

gevalia
20-Nov-2011, 09:05
I'm sure Wayne has his own secret sauce but a good place to start with B&W ABW settings for the 3800/3880 is Eric Chan's website where he chronicles and documents his workflow and provides a large number of ICC profiles for various papers.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3880/abwprofiles.html

I used his information with my 3800 with great success.

Don Bryant

Don, I've been using Eric's info since day 1. Just didn't see any palladium references there. Did I miss that?

Wayne Lambert
20-Nov-2011, 09:19
Ron and Don,
I once read that the color of a palladium print is a "warm brown tinged with rose." I've always liked that description. Developed in potassium oxalate, some of my prints do come close. As Don surmises, I experimented with various ABW settings trying to get close to that color. Then I read on Brooks Jensen's site (blog section, digital printing, 1/27/2010) that he prefers a brown produced by the settings "Tone dark, Horizontal 25, Vertical 50." This setting is between yellow and red on the ABW color wheel. Everything else on the "Color Controls" page is zero or Off. I tried that and found that it is almost a perfect match for my palladium prints. The "tinged with rose" part seems to be a bit elusive, though.

Other settings (for printing on Epson Hot Press Natural paper) include Ultrasmooth Fine Art Paper, Print Quality Level 4 (Superfine-1440x720 dpi), Paper Configuration all zero except Paper Thickness 5, Platen Gap Auto. Matte black ink, of course.

Wayne

paulr
20-Nov-2011, 09:42
All of the digital prints are sharper (bare tree branches against the sky kind of thing) than pt/pd contact prints on smooth Weston paper ...

Wayne, I'm really glad you're making this observation, because every time I do it people around here treat me like the town drunk. But it's true (that the piezo prints are sharper than the equivalent contact print, not that I'm the town drunk, at least I don't try to be).

I have a few images that I've printed as gelatin silver contact prints and also as piezo prints at 1:1 size. Even though my piezo prints are all on matte surface paper, they are subjectively sharper and more tactile looking than the glossy silver prints. Of course with enlargements, it's no contest. At 3X linear enlargement, the silver prints look like sharp enlargements but the piezo prints look practically like contact prints.

Jim Fitzgerald
20-Nov-2011, 09:43
Kirk, congratulations on finding the method that works for you. I personally think that whatever printing process one uses the end result must be a fine print. I could never master the digital work flow with my large format negatives. I found silver chloride printing on Azo to be right for me and the way I am wired. Then several years ago now I found carbon transfer printing and I will never look back. Once you find the process that touches your soul as an artist you use this to express yourself. Kirks work is wonderful and that is what matters. The images printed in the way that works for him is a great thing. Again, congratulations. I know how you feel.

Wayne Lambert
20-Nov-2011, 10:06
Jim,
Good points. Nicely stated.
Wayne

D. Bryant
20-Nov-2011, 11:05
Don, I've been using Eric's info since day 1. Just didn't see any palladium references there. Did I miss that?

No, just thought I would throw that out as a starting point. As Wayne implies in his follow up post, start somewhere and fine tune.

FWIW, I print palladium exclusively using inkjet negatives and I can closely replicate an inkjet print to the palladium prints, either from in camera or inkjet negs. If I had the space for another large printer I might try Cone inks or MIS Carbon 6/7. Cone prints will definitely out class the ABWs in sharpness and richness if they are done correctly.

D. Bryant
20-Nov-2011, 14:07
Ron and Don,
I once read that the color of a palladium print is a "warm brown tinged with rose." I've always liked that description. Developed in potassium oxalate, some of my prints do come close. As Don surmises, I experimented with various ABW settings trying to get close to that color. Then I read on Brooks Jensen's site (blog section, digital printing, 1/27/2010) that he prefers a brown produced by the settings "Tone dark, Horizontal 25, Vertical 50." This setting is between yellow and red on the ABW color wheel. Everything else on the "Color Controls" page is zero or Off. I tried that and found that it is almost a perfect match for my palladium prints. The "tinged with rose" part seems to be a bit elusive, though.

Other settings (for printing on Epson Hot Press Natural paper) include Ultrasmooth Fine Art Paper, Print Quality Level 4 (Superfine-1440x720 dpi), Paper Configuration all zero except Paper Thickness 5, Platen Gap Auto. Matte black ink, of course.

Wayne

Here is the LensWork permalink link:

http://daily.lenswork.com/2010/12/abw-print-toning-settings.html

Wayne Lambert
20-Nov-2011, 14:34
I'm glad you posted the link, Don, because I had misrepresented one of Brooks's settings. He does use Horizontal 25 and Vertical 50, but for Printer Color Adjustment, Tone, he uses "Normal," not "Dark." Apparently in my experimentation I decided I liked "Dark" better and that is what I use. But as he sagely notes, do your own experimentation!
Wayne

Lenny Eiger
20-Nov-2011, 14:35
Kirk,
Congratulations. I would say ditto to Jim's sentiments. We all have a process that makes sense to us internally. It's been a pleasure being a very small part of it.

I am printing today, loving my matte paper and my smooth-as-silk inkjet results. My Kozo prints are getting more luminescent every day as I learn this new media and how to make it sing.

When to come to CA, make sure to leave some time to come over and visit. I'll buy the beer and we can talk shop...

Lenny

Kirk Gittings
20-Nov-2011, 17:07
Thanks all. I've been swamped and will get back some answers tomorrow.

D. Bryant
20-Nov-2011, 17:42
Ron and Don,
I once read that the color of a palladium print is a "warm brown tinged with rose."

Wayne

At the risk of thread hijacking don't forget that palladium prints made with gum overs makes straight ABW matching really difficult. LR Split Tones over a way to easily make a color mimic (same with PS too) a bit more realistic and easy.

Thanks to Kirk for starting this thread. Wish I could be there to see the exhibit.

Perhaps if we are lucky some web shots might pop up.

Don Bryant

Bob McCarthy
21-Nov-2011, 11:01
Kirk,

I have been working on digital printing as a process also. My own path is 1:1 scan to print, of large negatives. Ie. scan at 1440 spi, and print at 1440 dpi. I call this digital contact printing. Quality is not in ball park with contact prints done wet. So why do it? It keeps getting closer, Canson photographique baryta just moved it a touch closer..

I would be grateful if you would describe your process, printing materials, etc..

I have not done the Cone process yet, though I am familiar and use QTR and AWB without a strong level of consistancy as too best process. I have an older printer put aside to experiment with Jon's inks, but I've been too busy and lately am behind the curve here.

Any chance to see prints you have in the show, posted here.

bob

Kirk Gittings
22-Nov-2011, 10:38
What was the biggest obstacle or problem you feel you had to overcome to get to this level of your ink jet process?

What is size print and negative?

Size was 4x5 and prints were 16x20. I would say the biggest obstacle is achieving a richness of tone while holding detail (no different than silver but with its own challenges). A certain richness is easier to achieve with gloss inks, but I was using the "neutral" mat ink set which without a deep dmax to set the tonal scale has unique challenges in this regard. To over simply somewhat, I have found for my taste that by pushing up the midtone contrast helps in this regard.

Kirk Gittings
22-Nov-2011, 10:44
Congratulations Kirk. I am in the midst of a similar process (on a different scale, for sure) and am having glimmers of similar results.

I am curious; have you tried K6/K7 glossy inks? If so, why did you choose matte for the show? In my trials and tribulations, one if the issues I had with matte is that the tonal range did not have the depth of Silver - this greatly affected some images though not others.

K6/K7 Glossy turned out to be the ticket for me. It has its own issues, but they were worth it for the result.

Love to hear your thoughts on this.

George

That is my next effort. Frankly I had done some mat cone prints earlier form "easier" negatives that were just beautiful, so that was the inkset I was committed to, I am looking forward to trying the gloss inks. The mat paper has its own beauty-more like a lithograph than a silver print-but that is lost somewhat when you get them under glass where they have to simply succeed on the richness of the tones.

tgtaylor
22-Nov-2011, 11:23
In my humble opinion, fluency in several different printing processes is the key to a full and rich photographic experience. Why limit oneself to just the ink-jet, silver or, for example, the cyanotype process when there are a number of other processes available that can better make your statement. A true photographer, in my opinion, is one that is fluent in several processes and is able to recognize at the outset which process would work best with a particular image.

Thomas

Drew Wiley
22-Nov-2011, 13:01
A lot of this just reinforces my opinion that folks who can make a really good b&w inkjet are those who learned conventional darkroom skills first. This will no doubt gradually change as another generation does not have a similar precedent, but for the
moment, one crowd seems willy-nilly and unawares of what a fine print even looks like,
while the old-timers already have quality in their blood and won't relax until they tame
the medium. This has more to do with attitude, patience, and philosophy than the
medium itself. Quality demands persistence.

Kirk Gittings
22-Nov-2011, 13:35
IMO Drew, absolutely true.

Oh and lessons from this journey? First and foremost a good scan is omni important. Working from a mediocre or bad scan is like trying to print from an overexposed or underexposed negative-you can get close, but it takes a ton more work to even get close. So it follows that for a good scan you of course need a good negative.

I like Lenny Eiger's scans because he tunes the scans to your expressive palette, which gives you a full 16 bit histogram fairly near where you want to be. That IME saves time and gives you simply more targeted info to tune the tones in the final image, which translates to smoother tonal transitions etc. This is subtle and almost at the level of the "feel" of the print, but I believe it is real.

Jim Fitzgerald
22-Nov-2011, 18:53
Thomas I believe that this is true. This is why I became a carbon printer. I have complete control over my final image tone. Not for all, but it is what makes the photographers heart sing is what matters.
If one finds the process that they absolutely love and it gives them all that they wish for why then keep searching?
Kirk has found what is great for him and I'm very happy for him. Keep searching until you find the method that works for you as an artist. The final work is what counts.

Brent Long
22-Nov-2011, 20:40
A lot of this just reinforces my opinion that folks who can make a really good b&w inkjet are those who learned conventional darkroom skills first. This will no doubt gradually change as another generation does not have a similar precedent, but for the
moment, one crowd seems willy-nilly and unawares of what a fine print even looks like,
while the old-timers already have quality in their blood and won't relax until they tame
the medium.

This is me. I really have no clue what a quality print looks like . . . at all! But, I want to know, and I want to make them. I want to make them, with simplicity in mind, from a good inkjet printer, with a matte finish. Where do you remarkable people suggest I start? I would love to try some traditional printing methods, but what is relatively simple and straightforward, without a lot of money, and probably for me even more importantly, a small physical space footprint? Or, is it possible to learn as I go with my K3 vivid magenta Epson printer?

I mentioned "simple" a couple of times above, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to be dedicated and meticulous. If you knew how much time I've spent over the past couple weeks trying to squeeze out better scans---and both praising and um, not praising, Ed Hamrick, Doug Fisher (but I love both these guys), and their respective scanning solutions---you'd know that :) .

Merg Ross
22-Nov-2011, 22:01
Thomas I believe that this is true. This is why I became a carbon printer. I have complete control over my final image tone. Not for all, but it is what makes the photographers heart sing is what matters.
If one finds the process that they absolutely love and it gives them all that they wish for why then keep searching?
Kirk has found what is great for him and I'm very happy for him. Keep searching until you find the method that works for you as an artist. The final work is what counts.

Jim, you and Thomas have pretty much summed up Kirk's excitement in his quest for an alternative process. The marriage of process and vision are what I consider photography to be about.

Congratulations to you, Kirk, on the exhibit, but more importantly, for your embrace and acceptance of a new process. I believe you alluded in conclusion that not all of your work is suited to the inkjet process; that would tend to support the remarks of Jim and Thomas. It is well to bear in mind that some of the silver printers that we revere, came to that process after experimentation with other processes.

I also agree with Drew, in that a good grounding in conventional silver printing would be beneficial to understanding an appropriate goal for inkjet. I am not implying that the two should appear identical in result, but simply that a good print is a good print, regardless of process; surely, one with a grasp of conventional silver printing is at an advantage.

One last thing, Kirk. I believe that you may never be beyond the need of affirmation of colleagues. They,that small group whom you respect, are important in providing the stimulus necessary for continuing with your artistic growth and vision. At least, that has been my experience.

Preston
23-Nov-2011, 09:35
This discussion is an inspiration for (may I say) all of us to realize the enormous potential of the medium, as well ourselves.

Congratulations, Kirk! I wish I could see your show.

Thanks to all for your insights!

--P

Kirk Gittings
23-Nov-2011, 12:02
The exhibit my prints are on the left. Oops on the right. Thanks Wayne!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31775421/Cont%20Land%20KGs.jpg

Wayne Lambert
23-Nov-2011, 13:26
Actually, on the right. You've been working too hard, Kirk.
Wayne

Richard Wasserman
23-Nov-2011, 13:33
Very nice Kirk! Looks like a great venue, I'm just sorry it's too far away for me to visit.

paulr
23-Nov-2011, 15:16
Looks spectacular, Kirk. Congrats.

Jim Fitzgerald
23-Nov-2011, 18:52
Kirk, beautiful looking space. Again congratulations.

Leigh
23-Nov-2011, 19:09
Hi Kirk,

Very nice work. Congratulations on the show.

Question if I may...
I've experienced a problem with "bronzing" on b&w inkjet prints.
Have you encountered that problem, and if so, how did you correct it?

Thanks very much.

- Leigh

Kirk Gittings
23-Nov-2011, 22:22
Thanks Leigh, try mat inks/paper or use Cone gloss system.

Leigh
23-Nov-2011, 22:23
Thanks, Kirk. Appreciate it.

- Leigh

James Hilton
24-Nov-2011, 07:14
I think the inkjet prints I produce are technically better than my darkroom prints, but for me they are certainly not as fun to make.

My past experience in the darkroom certainly helps, particularly when it comes to toning prints, but I don't think it is a prerequisite.

Inkjet printers may not be everyone’s cup of tea but they have opened up a lot of the alternative processes to people who couldn't make traditional enlarged negatives in a darkroom for whatever reason, and dare I say it have upped the game of many traditional printers? They have also let people who no longer have access to darkrooms make prints from film again by scanning and then printing, which can only be a good thing.

A hybrid workflow is exciting too, and this has taken up a lot of my tinkering and testing time recently.

Kirk, best of luck with the exhibition.

375Caltar
29-Nov-2011, 20:12
Kirk ..... I will be in NM last week of January and want to see your prints when I'm in Santa Fe. Can't wait. BTW, not to play the name drop game but do you know Lee Marmon? I'm going to probably have a Gin and Tonic with him while I'm there. Thirsty?

Kirk Gittings
29-Nov-2011, 20:23
Kirk ..... I will be in NM last week of January and want to see your prints when I'm in Santa Fe. Can't wait. BTW, not to play the name drop game but do you know Lee Marmon? I'm going to probably have a Gin and Tonic with him while I'm there. Thirsty?

Yes I know Lee fairly well for 30+ years, but unfortunately the last few times I saw him he couldn't remember me.........:confused:

Adamphotoman
2-Dec-2011, 02:28
Hi Kirt,
This will Ramble more than a bit ;

I am not really known here other than selling Globuscope 4X5's...But this is my 2 Cents-worth.
I no longer use the wet darkroom, but I have made over a million gelatine prints in my time. Ferrotype, Air-dried, Toned, Hand coloured---Cibachrome, RA, Split toning ETC...Enough history...the point is

I used to expose hard negatives onto a soft paper. Okay we all did this BUT...
I used a long 2 minute plus exposure onto a grade 0 Agfa Paper
[first pre focussed onto a sacrificed sheet]-Squeegeed wet and flat to a flat glass plate -

I then used a wet 2 minute developer soaked paper to make my print.

Shadows will darken during exposure...This slows shadow exposure...allowing highlights to continue to expose without increasing exposure to my shadows.
Essentially a chemical mask.
Dodging and burning on a granular level.
As exposure progresses micro dodging is accomplished and highlights will develop when the paper is finally re-submerged into the soup.

I now have more control digitally with more than 100 step tones.
I still paint and make Fine Art Reproduction "Giclée" prints for artists. I used to use 8X10 and now a Betterlight Scan Back.

As each new process is born, changes in imaging happens. A Van Dyke or traditional dye sub [not dye sublimation], cibachrome and now Paul Roark's Carbon prints all have an inherent intristic quality. Each can be beautiful - good, bad or ugly.

There is a huge amount of control in tonal separation with first piezography and now the newer inksets. Carbon is very archival. And Warm. Seeing into the matt blacks is best accomplished with spraying a fine mist of shinier UVLS Varnish.

Anyway my point is that even Ansel Adams might try out this new technology.


To Master it is to Master it. So lets go for it


Grant

Nathan Potter
2-Dec-2011, 08:42
Maybe an exaggeration? 2 min. exposure on one million prints would be almost 4 years of exposure alone, not counting the other parts of the process! Yikes, hope you don't have a wife!

That divided process is interesting - hadn't thought about that. Cheers.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Sal Santamaura
2-Dec-2011, 09:15
...my point is that even Ansel Adams might try out this new technology...Without the slightest doubt. At this point, however, I don't believe he'd adopt it for final prints.

Most likely, today Adams would be using scanning and PS to make negatives that embodied all his dodging, burning, etc. corrections, then making gelatin silver prints from those 'digital negatives' for sale and donation to institutions. He was extremely concerned with the life expectancy of prints. Inkjets just don't meet his standard in that regard. They will someday, but aren't there yet.

Kirk Gittings
2-Dec-2011, 10:21
I really think that trying to guess what a long dead and revered artist would do is exercise at best in self reflection.

GabrielSeri
2-Dec-2011, 12:52
I would like to think that he would be open to new technology but not give up on the traditional darkroom art form. He was a master printer after all.

Armin Seeholzer
2-Dec-2011, 13:50
I really think that trying to guess what a long dead and revered artist would do is exercise at best in self reflection.

Yes and also no Kirk!
I remember me on a Interview with holy A. Adams where he even talked about the future of photography will be electronically, he thinks. And Ansel liked to test new things, today he would work with a high end digiback!
He was result oriented, so give him a 80MP MF back he would use it!

Cheers Armin

Kirk Gittings
2-Dec-2011, 16:17
Armin, I had some wide ranging phone conservations with AA back in the mid 80's related to an article I was writing for the Journal of American Photography. His interests were broad and his curiosity was boundless. The one thing he said in those conversations that would have any impact now was that he thought resurrecting historic processes was a waste of time. He looked forward. I personally think if he had lived longer he would have delved deeply into modern digital technology and pushed it to a higher level than it is now, BUT what a joke! Do the math-that would have required him to live well past his 100th birthday! Its ridiculous to try and guess with any certitude what he would have done that late in life. He was a man of his time and not of this time. His history is written and beyond that it is all wishful thinking and guesswork.

Can we not turn this into a WWAD thread.

srbphoto
2-Dec-2011, 19:24
Brent - one of the best things you can do is look at as much original work as possible. If you can see a couple of high end shows, you will start to develop your eye. There are some well produced books but original photographs are a great experience.

Not sure what area you are in, but if you can find a great instructor at a college or giving classes that can speed up the process.

I think the statement about people who learned in the darkroom has some validity. To learn to print that way takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears. The people who stick with it will tend to have a better eye. Just don't think just because you try traditional printing you willl be better than someone who starts on a computer. A lot of garbage has come out of darkrooms (even mine haha).

The most important thing is it takes time, effort and patience. Like anything worth doing, you have to put in the time to get good.

Lenny Eiger
2-Dec-2011, 20:41
I would like to think that he would be open to new technology but not give up on the traditional darkroom art form. He was a master printer after all.

I printed for many years for other photographers, both in the darkroom and in platinum. I now do this using an inkjet printer. I am just as obsessive about the quality of what I am producing now as I have ever been.

There are some qualities that inkjets, and other alternative processes have, that can simply not be accomplished with gelatin silver. If that's what you are after, then those qualities will drive your process. What one is trying to create determines the methods that will ultimately be used.

There is nothing holy about being in a dark room with stinky chemicals. I know, I spent many years in there.

I'm with Kirk on this one. Trying to imagine what Ansel would do simply tells you about your own biases.

Lenny

tgtaylor
2-Dec-2011, 22:54
As Bob Dylan put it:

I'm headed for a different choice.
http://www.flickr.com//photos/gallery_alternative/show/

bob carnie
3-Dec-2011, 06:41
With good vent, good music , soft safelight I find the darkroom a very nice place, to spend half my time, the other half is in front of a Mac, with good vent , good music and subdued lights. Both places are fun to be at.

sanking
3-Dec-2011, 08:08
There are some qualities that inkjets, and other alternative processes have, that can simply not be accomplished with gelatin silver. If that's what you are after, then those qualities will drive your process. What one is trying to create determines the methods that will ultimately be used.

Lenny

This is slightly misleading in my opinion. The major issue is whether one prints directly with an in-camera negative or works with a digital file, not inkjet print versus silver or alternative print. As soon as the analog negative becomes a digital file there are vast controls possible in PS and in choice of output that permit vastly different image qualities in both silver and alternative printing.

Sandy King

Sal Santamaura
3-Dec-2011, 09:11
...Adams...was extremely concerned with the life expectancy of prints. Inkjets just don't meet his standard in that regard. They will someday, but aren't there yet.


I really think that trying to guess what a long dead and revered artist would do is exercise at best in self reflection.


...I'm with Kirk on this one. Trying to imagine what Ansel would do simply tells you about your own biases...What I posted above might reflect those biases, but they were formed from my extensive reading of what Adams wrote over the years. I speculated that, based on concern about how long his work should last, he would not adopt today's inkjets for prints which would be sold or donated to institutions. I'm just as certain he'd be fully involved in all aspects of the digital image capture and processing/printing processes, anxiously waiting for inkjet printing methods to reach those life expectancy standards.

My biases do not include an aversion to the aesthetic qualities of inkjet prints. I find them just as beautiful as, though different than, gelatin silver prints. However, were I a wealthy collector or institution's director of acquisitions, the only photographic works I'd purchase today would be fiber-based gelatin silver, pt/pd or carbon pigment for monochrome and carbon pigment in color. Clearly, given the recent Gursky sale, not to mention numerous instances of inkjet and other works being collected that don't meet my standards, I'm just as out of step with the rest of the world on this matter as on most other subjects. :)

Note that I share with the late John Cook an understanding that, after I die, my own work will --deservedly -- head straight to the dumpster. :)

tgtaylor
3-Dec-2011, 10:50
When Adams was starting out in photography pictoralism was the vogue. Rather than competing with the pictoralists, many of whom were far more accomplished in that genera than he was, he choose to specialize in what came to be known as straight photography and, being a master promoter that he was, he tirelessly promoted straight photography over the older genera for the rest of his life. It's understandable, therefore, that he would be equally dismissive of the older processes in his later years.

Would Adams have embraced digital photography as some have surmised? Personally I doubt that. He never, for example, embraced color photography when that process began to flourish in the 1940's and although he shot several thousand color transparencies – many of which were of excellent quality and, I am sure, he was personally pleased with – he was publically somewhat dismissive of color photography and chose to continue in B&W.

http://www.flickr.com//photos/gallery_alternative/show/

Zaitz
3-Dec-2011, 12:43
When Adams was starting out in photography pictoralism was the vogue. Rather than competing with the pictoralists, many of whom were far more accomplished in that genera than he was, he choose to specialize in what came to be known as straight photography and, being a master promoter that he was, he tirelessly promoted straight photography over the older genera for the rest of his life. It's understandable, therefore, that he would be equally dismissive of the older processes in his later years.

Would Adams have embraced digital photography as some have surmised? Personally I doubt that. He never, for example, embraced color photography when that process began to flourish in the 1940's and although he shot several thousand color transparencies – many of which were of excellent quality and, I am sure, he was personally pleased with – he was publically somewhat dismissive of color photography and chose to continue in B&W.

http://www.flickr.com//photos/gallery_alternative/show/

I think his distaste for color photography, especially during that time, stemmed from lack of control. He knew what he wanted to do with b&w and he knew how to get there. But a lot of color photos come out much different than expected and I am guessing it was 'worse' back then. His comment on one of his color photos was something like "the kodachrome sure is strong in the purples!." I think that was his way of saying I don't like it.

With digital processing he'd have unparallelled control over every tone in the photo. I am not sure what he'd choose to photograph on, film or digital, but I think the benefits of digital processing would appeal to him if he had time to learn and master it. Even if he didn't adopt it for whatever reason I still believe he would fully understand and appreciate the extreme control (and non destructive nature) a Photoshop workflow would offer.

Sal Santamaura
3-Dec-2011, 13:11
...would have required him to live well past his 100th birthday! Its ridiculous to try and guess with any certitude what he would have done that late in life...Speaking only for myself, but surmising that others posting in this thread are approaching the matter similarly, I speculated about Adams' position based on his being an active, perhaps middle-aged photographer in 2011, not a 111 year-old resident of a care home.


...Can we not turn this into a WWAD thread.Apparently the answer to your question is "no." :)

rdenney
3-Dec-2011, 15:17
If my prints don't deserve to be on our living room wall, it's probably not because of the printing. There is no question that working with images in Photoshop after scanning provides far greater control over the image without even considering the print. The subtleties people talk about with prints often seem to me fine effects when those big tonal manipulations seem like gross effects. I want to get the big things the way that satisfy me before the little things.

I wonder how many time-strapped amateurs like me are swayed one way or the other by arguments between master printers over subtleties that we will never be able to explore, at least before retirement. For most folks, it's not about what is achievable with unlimited resources, but rather what is achievable with the limited resources remaining after addressing all of life's other concerns. As much as we might admire the work of guys like Bob Carnie, we still want to own our own results, however compromised they might have to be because of that. We look forward to having more resources, however, and we don't want to waste our time on compromised processes we will ultimately have to abandon. So, it's nice to know that at the high end, the two approaches are satisfying enough to warrant an even debate (at the very least) by real experts. Kirk's results tell us we are not learning to fish in poisoned waters.

Hmmm, I think I'll scan some negatives.

Rick "who has spent as many years with inkjet prints as Kirk but not a sliver of a fraction of the hours" Denney

tgtaylor
3-Dec-2011, 15:49
To borrow from Crawford (The Keepers of Light: A History & Working Guide to Early Photographic Processes) a photographic image is best presented by choosing an appropriate syntax with which to present it. Some images will work well with several syntactical constructions while others will work best with only one. Rather than arming oneself with only one syntax with which to present images, why not become fluent with several and choose the more appropriate syntax for the image. It certainly expands your possibilities and at the same time forces you to “previsualize” the scene before you.



http://www.flickr.com//photos/gallery_alternative/show/

Kirk Gittings
3-Dec-2011, 15:57
Sal, OK I'll bite. If you are talking about "Adams' position based on his being an active, perhaps middle-aged photographer in 2011" then you are talking about someone born in the 60's with a completely different history in photography-someone who was not there to rebel against pictorialism, someone who did not witness the beginnings of the modern movement, someone who did not help form F64 or be around with Stigletz, Strand, Weston etc. etc etc. You would be talking about someone with a completely different life experience. Sorry, it makes no sense.

rdenney
3-Dec-2011, 17:58
Sal, OK I'll bite. If you are talking about "Adams' position based on his being an active, perhaps middle-aged photographer in 2011" then you are talking about someone born in the 60's with a completely different history in photography-someone who was not there to rebel against pictorialism, someone who did not witness the beginnings of the modern movement, someone who did not help form F64 or be around with Stigletz, Strand, Weston etc. etc etc. You would be talking about someone with a completely different life experience. Sorry, it makes no sense.

It is highly likely that there are several currently middle-aged photographers who could have been an Adams had they been born in San Francisco in 1902 under the same circumstances. Thus, the question might well already be answered, if would could just figure out which photographers comprise those several.

(The tuba forums have threads where people joke, "WWAJD?", of Arnold Jacobs, who is similarly iconic and similiarly long departed. And there we see the same sort of unanswerable questions about how they would relate to the current reality.)

Any current top artist might have been the earth-shaking icon of a prior period. But being born later, they have to pick up where those icons left off, not where they began, if they are to become the icons of the next generation.

Rick "noting that few geniuses become icons" Denney

Sal Santamaura
3-Dec-2011, 19:59
Sal, OK I'll bite. If you are talking about "Adams' position based on his being an active, perhaps middle-aged photographer in 2011" then you are talking about someone born in the 60's with a completely different history in photography-someone who was not there to rebel against pictorialism, someone who did not witness the beginnings of the modern movement, someone who did not help form F64 or be around with Stigletz, Strand, Weston etc. etc etc. You would be talking about someone with a completely different life experience. Sorry, it makes no sense.Kirk, that reply isn't to anything I posted. You're rebutting tgtaylor, not me. My comment stemmed solely from Adams' firm fixation (sorry for the pun) on only delivering prints exhibiting the maximum possible life expectancy. He would no doubt be experimenting with and aesthetically exploring inkjet, but at this stage in the new medium's evolution I don't think he'd abandon gelatin silver for prints sold / donated to collections.

At the risk of repetition, I am confident that a mythical "current" Adams would be either scanning film or employing digital capture, then enjoying all the control he wanted in PS, outputting files as "digital negatives" and printing those on gelatin silver. As soon as he became convinced that the life expectancy of inkjet equaled or exceeded silver gelatin, or silver gelatin paper disappeared from the market (whichever came first), he would move to inkjet. His aesthetic prediliction doesn't enter into my hypothesis at all.

Tyler Boley
3-Dec-2011, 20:21
Sal, may I suggest that your baseline assumption that silver has more longevity than ink is a much more complex issue than implied here. In fact, there are several ink/paper combinations now that may very well have more longevity potential than silver. The only reliable source any more, in my opinion, is Aadenburg-

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html

Results between comparative processes depend on so many variables, that performance may even reverse depending on storage, display, etc etc. I don't know if Mark has any silver prints in the testing, but he's been around long enough that he would have important input into this topic.
I'm also not so sure Ansel used silver primarily because of longevity, one might suggest if that were his criteria he would have chosen platinum which I can say without getting into anecdotes that was NOT interested in as a voice for his imagery.
As Kirk says, this shouldn't be a WWAD thread, but it is an inkjet thread, so clarity about process longevity is relevant.
Tyler

Sal Santamaura
3-Dec-2011, 21:11
...there are several ink/paper combinations now that may very well have more longevity potential than silver. The only reliable source any more, in my opinion, is Aadenburg-

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html...I briefly reviewed that Web site, looking over some case study documents and the "Real World" information. My initial reaction is that accelerated light fading tests provide only a rough indication of the display life expectancy (LE) of visual media. Museums today illuminate their exhibited prints with barely enough lumens to avoid having visitors trip and fall into them, so dark storage might be an even more important parameter. Until "Real World" experience over many, many years provides reliable LE data, I'd suggest taking this type of information with a grain of salt. How many times have photographers been told that RC paper was "as good as or better than fiber-based?" Does anyone still believe that?

I'm also skeptical of any entity's test results when it accepts funding from manufacturers of the media.


...Results between comparative processes depend on so many variables, that performance may even reverse depending on storage, display, etc etc. I don't know if Mark has any silver prints in the testing, but he's been around long enough that he would have important input into this topic...Please encourage him to post that input here. Despite my doubts about the usefulness of his testing, it would be interesting to see how a properly processed and mounted gelatin silver print fared against the inkjets that are doing best in his trials.


...I'm also not so sure Ansel used silver primarily because of longevity, one might suggest if that were his criteria he would have chosen platinum which I can say without getting into anecdotes that was NOT interested in as a voice for his imagery...While he might have aesthetically preferred gelatin silver to platinum, based on his writings it is entirely reasonable to assume that the LE of silver gelatin is a threshold he would not go below for the type of work I described.


...As Kirk says, this shouldn't be a WWAD thread...That ship sailed before my first post in this thread. Even Kirk has thrown up his hands and engaged the subject. :)

Fortunately, being a complete amateur, I don't have an interest in whether inkjet prints are thought by collectors to be shorter-lived than gelatin silver prints. I completely understand the position of those who sell inkjet prints.

Oren Grad
4-Dec-2011, 02:05
We have no idea how either today's FB or RC silver papers will fare over the long run. Past dogma can't be trusted, for several reasons:

* We do not actually know the survival probability of silver prints made decades ago; we have neither a reliable numerator nor a reliable denominator to estimate such rates. Even if we assume that such prints somehow define a standard for stability, we do not know how the paper base used for today's FB papers compares with that used decades ago. We do know that recent RC papers benefit from stabilizers, but we also know that in themselves these are not entirely protective, and we do not know how long their effect will last.

* We know that today's Kodak Rapid Selenium toner is not so protective as was believed to be the case in the past; a change in the composition of the toner, eliminating sulfiding contaminants, has been proposed as a plausible explanation. At the same time, we do know that selenium toning has at least some protective effect against light-driven deterioration modes distinctive to RC paper. Selenium toning to completion is likely highly protective of the image silver on either base, but is rarely done because with virtually all papers it has radical and typically undesirable effects on image character. Sulfide toning with complete conversion is also likely highly protective of the image silver but also is rarely used, for reasons both esthetic and practical.

* Print life is critically dependent on storage and display practices and conditions, including illumination, temperature, humidity and atmospheric contaminants, especially oxidizing agents. These attributes differentially affect FB and RC papers in ways that are far from completely understood and probably never will be completely elucidated, now that silver paper is no longer a mainstream medium and R&D has just about ground to a halt. Storage and display practices and conditions are also highly variable and continually evolving.

I'm not arguing that RC paper is more stable. Rather, I'm arguing two things. First, the traditional view that light selenium toning of prints made on FB paper is an assurance of print longevity has little empirical foundation today, if ever it did. And second, more generally, we don't have sufficient empirical basis to make any sweeping claims about longevity of modern silver prints of any kind, FB or RC.

The same, of course, is true of inkjet prints. The work on inkjet print stability by Wilhelm and by Aardenburg is extremely important and valuable, but nowhere near definitive with respect to long term, real world stability. We do not fully understand the failure modes of inkjet prints and their relationship to environmental conditions.

I print my own pictures in silver, because that's what I like. I use both FB and RC, for different purposes and on different occasions, and I take reasonable care in processing and storage, subject to practical constraints, to maximize longevity. But if I were selling prints, I wouldn't make any claims about long-term stability, because I think none are justified. The same would be true if I were printing in inkjet.

If somebody told me they wanted to create a photographic record that would be retained indefinitely as historical documentation, my advice would be to capture the pictures on polyester-based sheet film and print in Pt/Pd on a suitable paper.

Beyond that I'd just say pick the print medium whose esthetic characteristics you like most, take reasonable care to learn and follow best current understanding of how to process and preserve for maximum stability subject to your own esthetic and logistical requirements, and then don't lose sleep over it.

Brent Long
4-Dec-2011, 06:46
Brent - one of the best things you can do is look at as much original work as possible. If you can see a couple of high end shows, you will start to develop your eye. There are some well produced books but original photographs are a great experience.

Not sure what area you are in, but if you can find a great instructor at a college or giving classes that can speed up the process.

I think the statement about people who learned in the darkroom has some validity. To learn to print that way takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears. The people who stick with it will tend to have a better eye. Just don't think just because you try traditional printing you willl be better than someone who starts on a computer. A lot of garbage has come out of darkrooms (even mine haha).

The most important thing is it takes time, effort and patience. Like anything worth doing, you have to put in the time to get good.

Thanks for your response. I'm pretty comfortable using my desktop inkjet to make fine prints. I haven't done much printing, but with what little I've done, I see some things I like, some things that need tweaking, and am overall confident that I can get good prints with the practice that you advise.

Unfortunately, living in Okinawa puts some limits on viewing actual fine prints. Books and the internet will have to suffice for the most part. I think, though, that as long as I can, first, get a vision, you know, of what I want to do, and be relatively clear on that, I can manage, with practice, to get it on paper (dang that's a lot of commas . . . sorry if I've used more than my fair share).

Adamphotoman
5-Dec-2011, 00:54
Maybe an exaggeration? 2 min. exposure on one million prints would be almost 4 years of exposure alone, not counting the other parts of the process! Yikes, hope you don't have a wife!

That divided process is interesting - hadn't thought about that. Cheers.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nathon,

The 2 minute exposures were only for a small selection of tough prints. Just for the "divided process prints", and most exposures were under 10 seconds. So no exaggeration on the million prints.
I was in a darkroom for 30 years, sometimes running up to 5 enlargers at the same time... In the microscope division I would make multi exposures on single sheets and process up to 16 sheets at a time in a rocking sloshing kind of machine.
So 500 prints a day was normal. Washing and drying were also assisted.

The point is that I don't miss the darkroom.

It is pretty cool to shoot a 216 mega pixel digital file and then be able to use the the RGB channels to effectively get Colour Filter effects when switching to grayscale.

MHMG
5-Dec-2011, 09:54
I don't know if Mark has any silver prints in the testing, but he's been around long enough that he would have important input into this topic.

Tyler

I recently commissioned Digital Silver Imaging (www.digitalsilverimaging.com) to print six "traditional silver gelatin" prints, albeit exposed on a Durst Theta 51 digital printer rather than an optical enlarger, but otherwise processed conventionally. The six copies (all made using the Aardenburg monochrome digital test target) include three prints apiece on:

Ilford Galerie Digital Silver RC
http://ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=71&t=Photographic+Papers+Digital

Ilford Galerie Digital Silver Fiber
http://ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=72&t=Photographic+Papers+Digital

For each media type, one print is untoned, one toned with Sepia toner, one toned with Selenium toner 1:20.

They arrived last week. I hope to put them into test in January, 2011. I'm trying to benchmark a number of "traditional" processes along with modern inkjet using the Aardenburg light fade testing protocol because I think it will help to put into perspective how modern inkjet media fares against processes that dominated 20th century photography. The widely held assumption is that traditional B&W silver gelatin prints have no light sensitivity and thus should be pretty "bulletproof" in my testing. However, the RC type paper does contain OBAs, but embedded in gelatin rather than microporous inkjet layers, so it's anybody's guess how it will do in testing. A good enough reason to actually run some tests.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Tyler Boley
5-Dec-2011, 10:28
...snip...

I'm also skeptical of any entity's test results when it accepts funding from manufacturers of the media
....snip...



I would like to point out that a fundamental founding principal of Aardenburg Imaging & Archives testing was that it NOT be funded by manufacturers, or have any connections that might negatively effect procedures or the manner in which they are perceived. So this is an unfortunate implication. To my knowledge, Mark's testing has been from samples submitted by the actual printmaking community, ink/printer/paper combinations of interest to real artists, and samples he himself feels necessary for comparison purposes or to fill gaps in the sample pool. I myself have samples there, and I know others that do as well.
This was one of the reasons Aardenburg Imaging & Archives is so unique and valuable, and also difficult to keep alive...
Tyler

Oren Grad
5-Dec-2011, 10:51
The widely held assumption is that traditional B&W silver gelatin prints have no light sensitivity and thus should be pretty "bulletproof" in my testing. However, the RC type paper does contain OBAs, but embedded in gelatin rather than microporous inkjet layers, so it's anybody's guess how it will do in testing.

It's not just RC. Many FB silver papers - probably most of the FB silver paper used, if you measure by sales volume rather than by number of brands/types - contain OBAs as well.

Regardless, thanks for adding these silver papers, as well as other traditional media, to your tests - that will be a valuable complement to the inkjet data.

Sal Santamaura
5-Dec-2011, 11:55
I would like to point out that a fundamental founding principal of Aardenburg Imaging & Archives testing was that it NOT be funded by manufacturers, or have any connections that might negatively effect procedures or the manner in which they are perceived. So this is an unfortunate implication...I haven't been able to find that principal on the AaI&A Web site, but might have missed it. While not media manufacturers, The "Sponsors" page lists several entities engaged in the commerce of inkjet printing or support thereof. Under "News" one finds that AaI&A provides contracted testing services to manufacturers. This leads me to conclude that AaI&A occupies the same realm that Henry Wilhelm does today. I used to rely on Wilhelm's information, but no longer count on total objectivity from him either.


...To my knowledge, Mark's testing has been from samples submitted by the actual printmaking community, ink/printer/paper combinations of interest to real artists, and samples he himself feels necessary for comparison purposes or to fill gaps in the sample pool...Again, the "actual printmaking community" in question are those making inkjet prints, with a vested interest in certain results. Accelerated light fading addresses (with unknown accuracy at that) only one mechanism of print deterioration. Too many other possibilities are left untouched. I don't mean to impugn AaI&A's motives in the slightest; it's probably doing the best possible work under the circumstances. However, thorough and objective research into this subject requires resources and effort far beyond the private sector. Until well-funded, totally independent institutional inquiry is conducted, I'll continue to rely on real world results over time as the only reliable indications of print stability.

MHMG
5-Dec-2011, 13:27
Until well-funded, totally independent institutional inquiry is conducted, I'll continue to rely on real world results over time as the only reliable indications of print stability.

Your wish for ""totally independent institutional inquiry" is achieved as good as it gets by the Image Permanence Institute (IPI) in Rochester, NY. A 503(c) non profit and institutionally connected with the Rochester Institute of Technology, IPI raised nearly a million dollars in grant money this past year from foundations supporting the museums and archives community for various research projects targeted squarely at the permanence of digital media (mostly hard copy not electronic media).

That said, you won't find any product-specific test results published by IPI. It's in its organizational charter that IPI can't do product comparative testing and publish the results like WIR or Aardenburg have done. Wonder why? Follow the money:)


kind regards,
Mark

Sal Santamaura
5-Dec-2011, 13:44
...Wonder why? Follow the money:)...Precisely. :)

This is a task that should be performed (or funded at an institution like RIT) by the Library of Congress. We're flirting with politics here, but that's the only approach I consider absolutely beyond reproach.

MHMG
5-Dec-2011, 14:03
It's not just RC. Many FB silver papers - probably most of the FB silver paper used, if you measure by sales volume rather than by number of brands/types - contain OBAs as well.


Exactly right. WWAD!. For over 50 years OBAs have been incorporated in silver gelatin prints, and photographers like the look. A nice example of OBA fluorescence in an Adams print is shown in this article.

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.18.html

At the time I wrote this article, I didn't fully appreciate the role of gelatin as a swellable polymer in helping to prevent oxidation of the OBAs. In other words, OBAs in gelatin will be more protected from light and gas induced oxidation than when they are located in the top microporous ink receptor coatings (as long as the gelatin remains in dry state not gel state which can be crossed at about 75%RH at room temperature). Nevertheless, eventual burnout of OBAs will have a bigger visual effect on the delicate hue/chroma values in a monochrome print than would be noticeable in high chroma color images, so it will be good to perform some test on a silver gelatin system containing significant levels of OBAs.

best,
Mark

Oren Grad
5-Dec-2011, 14:21
Mark, one of the insights I get from reviewing some of your test results is that the absence of OBAs does not by itself guarantee that the paper base itself won't change its appearance, with possible effect on image character, under light exposure.

MHMG
5-Dec-2011, 14:56
Mark, one of the insights I get from reviewing some of your test results is that the absence of OBAs does not by itself guarantee that the paper base itself won't change its appearance, with possible effect on image character, under light exposure.

Correct. You've got that right. Paper bleaching can also occur. It's usually subtle, but it's there nonetheless and get's picked up in the AaI&A light fade testing method. One of the key things I've learned from the AaI&A testing to date is that when OBAs are used sparingly and dependent on where they are embedded (.e.g, paper core, subbing layer, or top coats), the general conclusion to avoid OBAs at all costs is indeed a bit simplistic. HN photo rag is a good example of an OBA containing fine art paper (it's in the paper core at low concentrations but not in the ink receptor coating) that performs as well as some OBA-free products which exhibit some tendency to light bleach. Product-specific tests that comprehensively report what is actually happening as the tests progress are the way to identify these issues. If the end-user is given only one figure of merit (e.g., a single-value display life rating) then issues like media whitepoint stability, non linear fade rates, and even which inks or blends of inks are most fade prone get lost in translation.

MHMG
5-Dec-2011, 16:37
This is a task that should be performed (or funded at an institution like RIT) by the Library of Congress. We're flirting with politics here, but that's the only approach I consider absolutely beyond reproach.



Please Let us all know when that ivory tower gets climbed.:rolleyes:

I started the Aardenburg digital print research program as a subscription plan nearly five years ago, very much patterned as a "Consumer Reports" business model, only collaborating interactively with fellow printmakers. I set the subscription price with the hope that it wouldn't be a serious barrier to entry. I did that for four years and that's what Tyler is remembering, but even with modest fees involved, the subscribers just didn't sign up at a rate that would enable the model to work. So, in February, 2011 I switched the program to a Free/donate model. The new model forces me to look for sponsors because only 1 in 10 new members is now willing to contribute any funds. So far, I've found sponsors that don't have a "dog in the hunt". They have graciously contributed dollars to Aardenburg with no strings attached. I have used the money to continue funding the testing of samples submitted not by the sponsors or by manufacturers but from fellow printmakers like those participating in this forum.

That said, the funding level is still way off the mark. This research is very labor intensive, and requires sophisticated equipment and expertise. I volunteer my time and so does my staff, but even with no salaries being paid, it's hard to keep the lights on (pardon the pun).

Whether some cry foul or not, I will willingly take on a major media or printer manufacturer as a sponsor or a client now. When I went to the Free/donate model, I also opened the doors to paid "fee-for-service" tests. Paid tests are just that...paid tests. They are performed with no differences in method or care. No independent lab could keep clients if it favored one client's products over another, so the notion that fee-for-service testing is inherently rigged to produce better than deserved results is absurd, IMHO. The bias problem occurs not with researchers fixing tests. However, a bias can occur if the test method is inherently flawed and can't properly distinguish real differences between products (something that could happen to any test no matter how they are paid for). Biases can occur also when products are deliberately omitted by the clients from testing. That's where the Printmakers' fund and AaI&A's willingness to continue testing for printmakers comes into play. By continuing to perform tests for individuals at no charge, any commercially available product is fair game for testing at AaI&A whether manufacturers send it to me or whether fellow printmakers send it to me.

Any manufacturer willing to work with AaI&A either as a sponsor (those funds are earmarked solely for the Printmakers' fund at AaI&A) or as a paid client knows the drill. No doubt many vendors are not going to want to play by those rules, because they can't control the full story the way they would ideally like to, but those companies that do work with AaI&A in the near future can help me keep this train on the tracks.

To be absolutely clear about this, let me reiterate that companies are not listed as AaI&A sponsors unless they are wiling to contribute unrestricted funds to to the AaI&A Printmakers' fund. Conceivably, a sponsor that is also a manufacturer could find the money it provids going towards testing products it doesn't even make. That will indeed be a gutsy move if a manufacturer is willing to become an AaI&A sponsor. It hasn't happened yet, and I"m not going to hold my breath waiting for this. As a logical alternative to AaI&A sponsorship, manufacturers are welcome to conduct client-paid tests at AaI&A. Such tests are now identified in the AaI&A database with blue-colored links. You can check for yourself if you think these tests are biased in one way or another by comparing to other results with green-colored links. The green-colored links signify individual printmaker-contributed or AaI&A-produced samples that were not paid for by manufacturers. Not an ivory tower approach by any means, but it's as good as it is going to get, IMHO, in the real world.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Kirk Gittings
5-Dec-2011, 16:42
Mark, We appreciate your efforts and FWIW I have been a small yearly donator-a very worthy thing to do with a few extra bucks every year.

Sal Santamaura
5-Dec-2011, 20:29
...This is a task that should be performed (or funded at an institution like RIT) by the Library of Congress. We're flirting with politics here, but that's the only approach I consider absolutely beyond reproach.


Please Let us all know when that ivory tower gets climbed...companies are not listed as AaI&A sponsors unless they are wiling to contribute unrestricted funds to to the AaI&A Printmakers' fund. Conceivably, a sponsor that is also a manufacturer could find the money it provids going towards testing products it doesn't even make. That will indeed be a gutsy move if a manufacturer is willing to become an AaI&A sponsor. It hasn't happened yet, and I"m not going to hold my breath waiting for this. As a logical alternative to AaI&A sponsorship, manufacturers are welcome to conduct client-paid tests at AaI&A. Such tests are now identified in the AaI&A database with blue-colored links. You can check for yourself if you think these tests are biased in one way or another by comparing to other results with green-colored links. The green-colored links signify individual printmaker-contributed or AaI&A-produced samples that were not paid for by manufacturers. Not an ivory tower approach by any means, but it's as good as it is going to get, IMHO, in the real world...Please understand that nothing I wrote was intended to suggest your work is without value. It's just that I still believe our society can and should make "ivory tower" endeavors happen. It did in the past and could, if the will existed, again.

On the other hand, I also posted this earlier in the thread:


...Clearly...I'm just as out of step with the rest of the world on this matter as on most other subjects. :)...

Brent Long
5-Dec-2011, 20:33
It's just that I still believe our society can and should make "ivory tower" endeavors happen. It did in the past and could, if the will existed, again.



It seems to me that MHMG is doing his very best to build one.

Sal Santamaura
5-Dec-2011, 20:41
...It's just that I still believe our society can and should make "ivory tower" endeavors happen. It did in the past and could, if the will existed, again...


It seems to me that MHMG is doing his very best to build one.OK, I've been dancing around the politics prohibition. When I wrote "society" I meant government.

Mark is obviously doing the best he can, but even he acknowledges his project isn't the fully funded, independent institutional research I would like to see, calling that "ivory tower."

MHMG
5-Dec-2011, 21:17
OK, I've been dancing around the politics prohibition. When I wrote "society" I meant government.


Sal, I do understand what you are saying, but you have a lot more idealism about government service than I do. In the interest of full disclosure, I was once a Federal US employee. I served as the Senior Research Photographic Scientist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington for 10 years. It was a fantastic experience, and I really enjoyed my work and my time there. I am very proud of the conservation science I was able to accomplish while essentially being paid by the American taxpayer (The SI is about 20% trust funded, 80% taxpayer funded). However, I would not have been allowed by my superiors to conduct the kind of research I'm now doing at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives. I'm also somehow strangely more personally connected to the research I'm doing today, even though the pay sucks and it's a classic example of no good deed going unpunished:o

Gotta tend to some test samples now...

later,
Mark

paulr
5-Dec-2011, 22:47
Oren's points are all valid, and echo what's frequently reported by curators and conservators. Some silver prints have lasted over a hundred years with very little change, others have degenerated within a few decades.

Unfortunately there hasn't been much scientific investigation into the disparities. The obvious culprit would be residual thiosulfate or silver ions, but this often isn't the case. It may come down to idiosyncrasies with certain brands and types of paper. If this is the case, we are in no more able to predict longevity with silver papers than with ink papers, because there is no paper available today that was available a hundred years ago.

MHMG
6-Dec-2011, 08:17
Oren's points are all valid, and echo what's frequently reported by curators and conservators. Some silver prints have lasted over a hundred years with very little change, others have degenerated within a few decades.

Unfortunately there hasn't been much scientific investigation into the disparities. The obvious culprit would be residual thiosulfate or silver ions, but this often isn't the case. It may come down to idiosyncrasies with certain brands and types of paper. If this is the case, we are in no more able to predict longevity with silver papers than with ink papers, because there is no paper available today that was available a hundred years ago.

Actually, there have been mountains of research on the traditional silver gelatin print, and photo conservators understand a great deal about the degradation factors. Many of the "bad actors" we see today were poorly processed and it's relatively easy to identify these prints. But what about the well-processed prints? Well, we also know that another inherent weakness is related to the glass transition temperature (Tg) of gelatin. Unlike many other polymers, the Tg of gelatin varies with moisture content. The Tg is where the gelatin switches from hard dry polymer to rubbery gel state. This property is what makes photographic processing possible, but it's also a double edged sword because it also means the image bearing gelatin will always remain highly vulnerable to high humidity conditions that frequently occur in the real world. At typical room temperature gelatin's Tg is crossed at about 75%RH. Under these gel state conditions, silver gelatin prints can "ferrotype" and stick to other surfaces (e.g., in a picture frame without a mat board spacer), and the silver particles are prone to oxidation-reduction reactions that lead to the classic silver tarnish problem often called "silver mirroring". Lastly, we know a great deal about the physical properties of gelatin when subjected to strong humidity cycling over the years. As the humidity cycle goes from high to low, the gelatin shrinks and the restrained image bearing gelatin goes under very high mechanical stress that eventually leads to severe cracking and flaking. Collectors can therefore take steps to ensure that high humidity and strong humidity cycling don't occur, and under these more benign conditions gelatin is a very durable polymer. BTW, we've learned about these degradation pathways through accelerated testing then comparing to real world experience. If this were not the case, I wouldn't continue to do the research I do on modern imaging materials.

What photo conservators know much less about is appropriate physical and chemical restoration techniques for those poorly processed or cracked and flaking prints that are low risk (ie., do no further harm) and ideally reversible if the results don't come out as expected. On that score, I'd agree with you. We have a lot more to learn. That said, a majority of people regard only the information content not the tactile or aesthetic properties of photographs to be of historic importance, thus digital image enhancement of degraded images is a viable approach to image "restoration" in many instances.

Brent Long
6-Dec-2011, 22:29
OK, I've been dancing around the politics prohibition. When I wrote "society" I meant government.

Mark is obviously doing the best he can, but even he acknowledges his project isn't the fully funded, independent institutional research I would like to see, calling that "ivory tower."

No, Sal. I got that. I know what you mean when you say "ivory tower." But, inherent in that, is the ideal. If, for example, a perfect scenario were possible apart from government, then why would you care? Again, IF. So, I give all the credit in the world to Mark, and since he is open and honest about where the shortcomings are in his attempts to keep any possibility for bias out, he is, essentially, getting right back to that unbiased position he yearns for.

And you, I think, have waaaaaay to much confidence in the ability of the government to be an unbiased entity. That is, precisely, what government will never be, in my opinion, where employment is determined by keeping the right people happy; people who have their own special interests to keep other people happy, and so on, and so on.

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 07:26
And you, I think, have waaaaaay to much confidence in the ability of the government to be an unbiased entity. That is, precisely, what government will never be, in my opinion, where employment is determined by keeping the right people happy; people who have their own special interests to keep other people happy, and so on, and so on.

While I agree with your conclusion, I think you greatly overestimate the ubiquity of malicious corruption. There will always be willful corruption in human endeavors, and it really doesn't matter which batch of humans one might be considering. But most government employees are trying to do the right thing within the context of the possible, as they see it. If there is an inherent bias in government, it's that the context of the possible will seem limited to those who are subject to political and organizational pressure but who have little or no control over it. That statement does not imply evil masterminds exerting such pressure. The bias can occur when everyone is trying to do the right thing.

But government cannot be in the business of recommending products (or, more particularly, recommending against them). Nothing will get a government employee in hot water with elected officials faster than saying Product X is of lesser quality than Product Y. What government can do is work towards uniform standards of measurement and evaluation, so that consumers (at whatever level in the commercial chain) can make a reasonable evaluation for themselves, or at least know how to evaluate the recommendations of third parties.

Those uniform standards, however, will always be behind the technology front, and will be quite conservatively rendered, in some cases to the point of stifling innovation (and certainly subject to that accusation). Overt creativity upsets the balance of an organization's culture as much in government as in large private-sector organizations (which in some ways are worse).

This is not a political issue and the above applies to all political and economic systems. Arguing which is better or worse is what should be considered a political statement that is banned on this forum.

The answer is not who does these evaluations, but rather how they are done. Or, more specifically, how openly they are done. Transparency and sunlight are the sure preventative for corruption, intentional or otherwise. That does not mean that everyone participates in every effort--that would lead to getting nothing done. It does mean that efforts are clearly described--clearly enough to be tested for repeatability. Scientific conclusions have always been supported by independent repeatability.

We constantly get hung up on who does stuff, which paints people into two camps: The good guys who always display integrity and can do no wrong, and the bad guys who are always motivated by selfishness and evil. The first group are trusted absolutely until they make the slightest misstep (however that is defined, usually after the fact), and then they are immediately thrown into the second camp. And the second camp comprises everyone who is not willing to fall on their swords for every minor point of integrity (however that is defined, usually after the fact). This hang-up is one of the main reasons people in large organizations and government tend to be uncreative; the rules get defined after the fact, and what seems a reasonable approach at the time, given all points of view, gets them thumped when seen with hindsight. And the cliche that hindsight is 20/20 is abjectly false.

Again, this is not political. This is human nature. The bias comes when people must go to constraining lengths to protect themselves from being punished for doing what a reasonable person in the situation would think is the right thing. It happens often enough so that such protection is not without justification. But this bias is real: It often makes people afraid to speak the obvious truth. This happens everywhere, and certainly not just in government. And people willing to take risks rise above it everywhere, and certainly not just in the private sector. And vice versa.

Rick "not inexperienced in these matters" Denney

Sal Santamaura
7-Dec-2011, 10:02
...The answer is not who does these evaluations, but rather how they are done. Or, more specifically, how openly they are done...
The issue I raised does relate to how evaluations are done, but "how" is a direct consequence of who does them. Specifically, I contended that only an appropriate government entity like the LOC has / should have the virtually unlimited resources (compared to private non-profits) necessary for performing evaluations on all relevant characteristics over a full spectrum of conditions.

Kirk Gittings
7-Dec-2011, 10:12
Some people asked for some images refered to in the OP. Here is one-though the actual print in a warm tone Piezography ink on mat paper and has a different "look" to it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31775421/Cont%20Land%20%2007.jpg

paulr
7-Dec-2011, 11:04
And you, I think, have waaaaaay to much confidence in the ability of the government to be an unbiased entity. That is, precisely, what government will never be, in my opinion, where employment is determined by keeping the right people happy; people who have their own special interests to keep other people happy, and so on, and so on.

This kind of rhetoric could be used to discredit anything. It's not helpful. I suspect everyone here can agree on this: human beings are biased. Individually or in groups, in the public sector, the private sector, in our bedrooms, laboratories, or missile command centers.

Even when we try to be unbiassed, we are pretty good at creating modes of inquiry that have structural biases built in (look up "experimental bias" ... it's interesting).

What science gives us is a whole tool set and methodology for compensating for the effects of those biases. Various forms of blind testing and experimental controls are among these. So is full disclosure: if there is a sponsor with a vested interest, this must be disclosed. This will of course attract closer scrutiny than if the sponsor were a disinterested party. Full disclosure includes the methodology and the data. A properly documented experiment can be duplicated by any other lab.

It's never infallible, because it's done by humans (see above). You will find examples of mistakes that somehow made it through many levels of scrutiny and peer review. You'll also find examples of fraud. Luckily, the most eggregious examples almost always end the careers of the responsible researchers. The point is, none of this has anything to do with whether or not the employer is in the public or private sector.

All else equal, I'd prefer the public sector. Who is more likely to sponsor unbiased research ... the National Institute of Health or Merck?

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 11:07
The issue I raised does relate to how evaluations are done, but "how" is a direct consequence of who does them. Specifically, I contended that only an appropriate government entity like the LOC has / should have the virtually unlimited resources (compared to private non-profits) necessary for performing evaluations on all relevant characteristics over a full spectrum of conditions.

They would be prohibited from reporting results for specific products, however, or even constructing an evaluation aimed at making that distinction.

They might support research into testing methods aimed at their own archive, and such research will usually be available if you ask for it.

In my line of work, we almost always have to set up peer-exchange groups or work through professional societies to do this sort of thing. I'm not sure the federal government is as empowered as you think it is or should be. I've spent a good chunk of my year this year helping deflect criticism (from Congress) resulting from the mere impression (mistaken) that some people gained from things we said that they thought favored a particular product in an industry.

Rick "thinking the Smithsonian would be more likely to fund studies of art permanence" Denney

MHMG
7-Dec-2011, 11:26
Specifically, I contended that only an appropriate government entity like the LOC has / should have the virtually unlimited resources (compared to private non-profits) necessary for performing evaluations on all relevant characteristics over a full spectrum of conditions.

Institutions like LOC have very large budgets indeed, but those budgets are spread thin over many worthy activities. Major Museums, Libraries and Archives tend to allocate the majority of their funds to patron services, exhibits, etc. Preservation research funding takes a back seat. Moreover, the bosses that direct those research funds tend to rightfully favor research on materials that are already represented in high quantities in the collections. The newest technologies have to become "old" and be well represented in the collections before any managerial attention begins to be directed to working on them as preservation worthy research. Thus, the hope with regard to LOC funding inkjet media research may come true in perhaps another decade or two, but I can assure everyone the funding will not be "virtually unlimited". Meanwhile, independent labs like WIR and AaI&A are doing their best to pick up the slack.

Brent Long
7-Dec-2011, 12:41
Paul and Rick,

You both make good points, and one's that I agree with. My wording was very general, trying to get Sal to see something (though I think he already knows).

Anyway, my only direct government contact/work was at the very lowest level; an enlisted military man; an accountant, though. I only had a few million to "play" with, but even then, the waste is obvious and much.

Mind you, I worked for great people, and I agree that it's the exception rather than the rule when government workers are full-on corrupt. Most are good workers, trying to do a good job, for the most part. But, that's the category that I was in myself, along with the people that worked around me. And still, it was a precedent that we waste money.

Now that is the very nook and cranny of it all. I was at the bottom of the bottom. But, I had a job to do, and part of that was to spend money for things we didn't need, or know what we would do with, just so we wouldn't "lose" it.

Now what I describe doesn't necessarily relate directly, I know. It's purely anecdotal. Nonetheless, I would say that the higher one gets up in the government, the potential for like problems, and much worse, increases. One problem you begin to deal with is the problem of power. A power tripping honcho can undo a whole lot of otherwise potentially very good work. And, said honcho may even be a really nice guy or gal.

The key word in it all, I think, is bias. But, as has been stated, bias can exist anywhere, and go genuinely undetected by those who most exhibit it. And our circumstances which feed our biases are so subtle that it's impossible to even know what they all are.

Anyway, the government isn't the answer. But, I don't mean to say the government couldn't possibly be, or become, the answer. This goes for the private sector too, of course. What I think the answer is is this: The proof is in the pudding. We just have to evaluate the evaluaters and test the testers and check on the checkers to get a fair idea of what the truth is, or where it is likely to be found.

Example: I heard about Jon Cone inks. I went to Inkjet Mall and read their claims. Do you think I ordered because they talked up their product? Ha! Not in a million years. I searched here. I searched other forums. I read what other USERS were saying. I came across Jon's posts talking to customers, and potential customers. In other words, I researched to see if it seemed likely that what Jon Cone says his research shows was true.

And that's all we can do. And that is, at least partly, what we're doing here, now.

And . . . my ink arrived today.

Brent Long
7-Dec-2011, 12:52
Who is more likely to sponsor unbiased research ... the National Institute of Health or Merck?

Well, since you say "unbiased", neither. I could answer the question if you say "less biased", however. But then we've not gotten our ivory tower just yet either.

Tyler Boley
7-Dec-2011, 12:59
Great image Kirk, wish I could see the prints...
Tyler

Sal Santamaura
7-Dec-2011, 13:32
...you, I think, have waaaaaay to much confidence in the ability of the government to be an unbiased entity. That is, precisely, what government will never be, in my opinion...


...Specifically, I contended that only an appropriate government entity like the LOC has / should have the virtually unlimited resources (compared to private non-profits) necessary for performing evaluations on all relevant characteristics over a full spectrum of conditions.Bold italics added when quoting.


They would be prohibited from reporting results for specific products, however, or even constructing an evaluation aimed at making that distinction...I'm not sure the federal government is as empowered as you think it is or should be. I've spent a good chunk of my year this year helping deflect criticism (from Congress) resulting from the mere impression (mistaken) that some people gained from things we said that they thought favored a particular product in an industry...


Institutions like LOC have very large budgets indeed, but those budgets are spread thin over many worthy activities...


...My wording was very general, trying to get Sal to see something (though I think he already knows)....Anyway, the government isn't the answer. But, I don't mean to say the government couldn't possibly be, or become, the answer...I suspect that the "something" Brent was trying to get me to see I didn't already know and don't accept.

This is a very difficult line of discussion to engage in while remaining mindful of the politics prohibition here. However, having been told by a moderator that it's less about politics than government in general and is germane to factors that influence research, I'll plod onward.

In my opinion, it is appropriate that government, the LOC in particular, take the lead in this and similar research. It should be provided a research budget that, compared to what private non-profit projects can raise, is virtually unlimited. It should be not only freed from restrictions against conducting, but mandated to conduct exhaustive comparative evaluations of specific products. If the factual results thereof favor some people (manufacturers) at the expense of others, so be it. Let objectivity rule. Congress' objections stem not from any sense of fairness, but reflect a concern that results favor other than the specific people who "own" them.

In my "ivory tower," there would be no need for Consumers Union. The US government, in full compliance with its constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare, would provide extensive objective information on all products and services available in this country. Given my previously posted observation about how I'm just as out of step with the rest of the world on this matter as on most other subjects, not to mention electoral trends of recent years, we'll be relying solely on whatever inkjet stability data WIR and AaI&A provide for a long, long time. :)

Kirk Gittings
7-Dec-2011, 13:41
Thanks Tyler.

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 13:54
In my opinion, it is appropriate that government, the LOC in particular, take the lead in this and similar research. It should be provided a research budget that, compared to what private non-profit projects can raise, is virtually unlimited. It should be not only freed from restrictions against conducting, but mandated to conduct exhaustive comparative evaluations of specific products. If the factual results thereof favor some people (manufacturers) at the expense of others, so be it. Let objectivity rule. Congress' objections stem not from any sense of fairness, but reflect a concern that results favor other than the specific people who "own" them.

What is it about research that defies objectivity? Let me repeat: What confirms the truth of science is that it is reported transparently enough to be verified by repetition. Transparency enables repetition, and repetition confirms results.

Government is pretty good about transparency. But when it is spending all the money on research, there will never be repetition, because nobody will ever be motivated to confirm results. If government funding is comparatively unlimited, as you suggest, then there can be little competition.

A Consumer's Union can only exist in the private sector, and remain trustworthy. The only complaints I've ever heard about the Consumer's Union attack its technical accuracy, not its integrity. Government would be incessantly attacked on both fronts. On the other hand, government gets accused of bias and corruption at every turn. There has never been a government on this planet that most of its people trusted to find truth and report it truthfully. Private-sector entities sometimes fare better, and sometimes do not. The position or reputation of the researcher will never be a reliable basis for evaluating its results.

Rick "who is not talking about waste" Denney

Sal Santamaura
7-Dec-2011, 14:31
What is it about research that defies objectivity?...The objectivity of private-sector research must always be evaluated based on its funding source(s). Consumers Union (CU) accepts no funding from manufacturers. If the US government performed the same research, using general funds from the Treasury, it could be an even more valuable resource than CU, addressing a wider range of products and services than CU is forced to concentrate on because its subscribers demand them. A government-run version of CU would be able to promote the general welfare of a much larger portion of the citizenry. You know, sort of like "public broadcasting" used to do before its funding was decimated and it had to resort to running de facto commercials. :)


...In my opinion, it is appropriate that government, the LOC in particular,...should be...mandated to conduct exhaustive comparative evaluations of specific products..."Exhaustive" bolded and italicized in this quote.

Focusing only on accelerated light fading leaves open the possibility (probability?) that there are other mechanisms which will degrade inkjet prints. In an "ivory tower" research program at the LOC, factors beyond what Mark tests could be investigated.

Oren Grad
7-Dec-2011, 14:58
The only complaints I've ever heard about the Consumer's Union attack its technical accuracy, not its integrity.

There's another problem that runs even deeper than technical accuracy but is not related to integrity per se. CU's ratings are based on arbitrary and unspecified weightings of opaque product attributes. Because the attribute definitions and weightings and the raw measurements are not made public, the consumer has no way to "re-process" CU's objective measurements to filter out CU's biases and create ratings that are are responsive to his or her own values.

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 15:29
Who is more likely to sponsor unbiased research ... the National Institute of Health or Merck?

Neither. But the bias of Merck will be more obvious, and easier to correct (through repeatability) than the insidious but subterranean systemic bias of the NIH.

We should distinguish between three categories of experimentation: Basic research, applied research, and what I will incorrectly (for lack of a better word) call product research. Simplistically, basic research aims to think up new ideas and approaches. Applied research aims to learn better ways to do the things we already do. Product research, as I have defined it, aims to define a set of requirements and then see which products fulfill them.

The longevity issue we are discussing has a little bit of all three. Basic research tries to ask questions like: What causes prints to become damaged through age? What are the underlying mechanisms by which that damage is manifested?

Applied research would ask: What can manufacturers do to alleviate damage through age? What can be done to overcome those underlying processes? How well do those mitigation strategies actually work with respect to what they cost? What can preservers do to minimize the progress of those processes? What can conservators do to reverse them? These are the sorts of questions Mark describes in his Smithsonian activities.

Product research would ask: Is Product A more resistant to the underlying mechanisms that cause age damage? Does Product A employ the mitigation strategies developed by applied research? What about Product B?

Government can actually have a positive role in basic research, because often the financial risk of such research is beyond what any one private-sector entity can muster. But as soon as the basis research reaches the point where it can be applied, it should turn that research over the private sector. If there is a market for the outcome of that research, the private sector is a more efficient tool for getting it done timely. Product research, as I have defined it, should be done by an independent third party--independent either in the sense that its results are transparent and can be verified and validated independently, or independent in being disinterested (nearly impossible to find, by the way--the truly disinterested are rarely experts and experts are rarely disinterested). Preferably both if possible.

I have to shut up now. This is what I do for a living and my pontification quotient has been greatly exceeded this week.

Rick "who has had this conversation more than one today" Denney

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 15:45
There's another problem that runs even deeper than technical accuracy but is not related to integrity per se. CU's ratings are based on arbitrary and unspecified weightings of opaque product attributes.

Yes. The opacity is caused by the attribute not being related to what a consumer will actually do in a way that validates the importance of that attribute. In fact, they are subject to the biases of their consumers, who want simple rankings rather than sophisticated evaluations based on need-driven requirements. This is absolutely true with much government R&D. Absolutely.

Rick "not guessing" Denney

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 15:52
Focusing only on accelerated light fading leaves open the possibility (probability?) that there are other mechanisms which will degrade inkjet prints. In an "ivory tower" research program at the LOC, factors beyond what Mark tests could be investigated.

With respect to my subsequent post, the notion that Mark is not considering all the important factors could have a couple of causes. One is that we don't know enough about those factors, and that's back in the realm of the research that the LOC or the Smithsonian could indeed do. The other is that Mark can't afford to cover some factors which require extravagant apparatus to test. That doesn't mean government can--I've been in R&D labs owned by the government and frankly any large private-sector company could and does do better.

At some point, we may have to pull in big resources to really delve into this topic enough to address all concerns. But then we get to the motivation behind it, and that points more to Jay's thread on the ability of photographs to buy preservation.

Rick "seeing more overlap in our positions than you might" Denney

Sal Santamaura
7-Dec-2011, 16:41
...Mark can't afford to cover some factors which require extravagant apparatus to test. That doesn't mean government can...Just like Michael Corleone in Godfather III, I'm trying to get out and you keep pulling me back in. :)

Yes, the US government can afford to cover all factors. It doesn't choose to, instead expending unimaginable amounts of money on activities contrary to the interests of most citizens and favorable to those who "own" it. In my opinion, government should address inkjet print longevity as well as consumer research in general. You keep describing the current condition; I'm writing about they way things, in my opinion, ought to be.

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 17:29
Just like Michael Corleone in Godfather III, I'm trying to get out and you keep pulling me back in. :)

Yes, the US government can afford to cover all factors. It doesn't choose to, instead expending unimaginable amounts of money on activities contrary to the interests of most citizens and favorable to those who "own" it. In my opinion, government should address inkjet print longevity as well as consumer research in general. You keep describing the current condition; I'm writing about they way things, in my opinion, ought to be.

The setting of priorities is a political decision. How government works is not. I was staying with the latter, hoping to avoid two edges: 1.) of my expertise, and 2.) of the forum's boundary.

Rick "who has never met a K-street lobbyist" Denney

Brent Long
8-Dec-2011, 02:49
Rick "who is not talking about waste" Denney

And:


Neither. But the bias of Merck will be more obvious, and easier to correct (through repeatability) than the insidious but subterranean systemic bias of the NIH.

I'm not talking about waste, either. I'm talking about the systemic ways in which any problem can become ingrained into any system, from which, we apparently agree, government entities are not exempt.

The second quote above is (practically) spot on. I only take slight issue (very pedantically) with the "easier to correct" portion of it. It may be easier to get further away from the conclusions, more quickly, of Merck, but to actually, fully, correct them is another matter.

Brent Long
8-Dec-2011, 03:17
I suspect that the "something" Brent was trying to get me to see I didn't already know and don't accept.

. . .

In my "ivory tower," there would be no need for Consumers Union. The US government, in full compliance with its constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare, would provide extensive objective information on all products and services available in this country.

The highlighted portion, I think, would be where you fall on your own sword. The point is general welfare. In your thinking on this topic you have, apparently, unwittingly given "general welfare" a very narrow definition. But, for example, the government has a vested interest in keeping workers at company B employed, just as they do for workers at company A, even though company A's product is far superior to that of company B's. If you narrowly define "general welfare" as only concerning consumer welfare, then you get the notion of an ivory tower. But I don't think such a narrow definition is warranted here.

Conversely, a private sector group doing research, if it can be funded properly (admittedly a big problem), has it as their vested interest to actually be unbiased. If consumers know that their research can be trusted, that keeps their work valid, and their existence worthwhile, which keeps funds coming. It's as if it is their very job; being unbiased.

John NYC
8-Dec-2011, 06:22
I read the first post and then the last so far. How in the world did this thread get so far off in the weeds? (Rhetorical.) I am not going to read to find out. Surely would have been great to have an on-topic, state-of-the-art thread about inkjet printing by the tops pros here though.

Letoco
8-Dec-2011, 09:44
Somehow I was chuckling a lot reading this thread and the OP. Remember the evergreen «*is digital better than film*»? Those seeking to see that a digital camera «*finally*» takes pictures like a LF camera missing the point of apples and oranges? Yet, they are many and going hard for it. Not without a certain interest, I have to admit.
Now we have this thread - my inkjet prints are finally just (well, almost) like my wet prints. Good. Do inkjet printers need to look for their «*raison d’être*» in a darkroom? Of course not, apples have their own reason to be which are different from oranges. Digital photographers left happily the LF crowd when they understood it.
Of course there will always be (that’s why we have the evergreens) those who will compare apples to oranges seeking the advantages of the first in the second and vice versa. Not without a certain interest, I admit.
Anyway, it is good to see that the classical digital/analogue theme have been enriched with this variant. After good 10 years or so of inkjet photo printing industry wasn’t it - finally - due to come? Welcome!

Kirk Gittings
8-Dec-2011, 09:48
And where did I say that the objective with inkjet prints is to look like silver prints? You are making assumptions that are not there. As a matter of fact I have been saying the exact opposite for the last 6 years-that they have their own unique beauty as a process.

Letoco
8-Dec-2011, 09:57
«*Knowing what a fine B&W print looks like helped drive my quest.*»
--
«*Ed is more of a fellow traveler than a friend and he is a hardcore 5x7 film/gelatin-silver guy. Ed is also a no bullshit kind of guy and says exactly what he thinks. I was very curious what he thought of the prints. Well he loved them and quizzed me in depth about the process. It was a nice affirmation of my own thoughts on the prints.*»
--
«*So......why am i sharing this? Because today....finally (without any question way back in the recesses of my ego) the viability of injet as a quality b&w print medium is totally settled for me.*»
--
The hints of the comparison mental process. Never mind, as I said, I’m glad the evergreen is now richer with this theme. That’s what matters.

Kirk Gittings
8-Dec-2011, 10:24
The hints of the comparison are in your mindset. Let me give you the obvious example. These prints are warm toned on mat paper-a look that I totally hate on silver paper, but in ink can be really luxurious and beautiful. To me mat silver paper looks phony, but in ink it can have all the richness and beauty of other ink on paper mediums like lithographs.

Letoco
8-Dec-2011, 10:29
Lighten up, fellow. You definitely have the merit of having lit the new endless series of the theme - digital versus analogue. That already in itself is well worth of a bottle of champagne!

tgtaylor
8-Dec-2011, 10:30
SIX YEARS!!!Geez, six days maybe, but six years... lol

Here's an example of spending 3 days with a process:

Coastal Defense

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7002/6455367855_376efe114a_z.jpg

Note: I need a larger printing frame.

Letoco
8-Dec-2011, 10:49
A nice picture tg. Hope the trees are not of an endangered tropical species.

tgtaylor
8-Dec-2011, 10:53
Thank you Letoco.

I had to log back on to correct myself. The Van Dyke was the 2d sheet on the 1st day and not the 3d. I didn't have enough sensiitizer solution on the first.

Letoco
8-Dec-2011, 11:19
Don’t know why but it reminded me immediately about old illustrations in Jules Verne’s books. Somehow the picture easily frees mind’s imagination. A good one, indeed. Thanks for posting it.

Ken Lee
8-Dec-2011, 18:30
Now that the lofty ideal of unbiased research has been explored from every angle...

I just made my donation to the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives web site.

1) At the risk of over-simplification, is there an "executive summary" for those of us who are simply looking for a printer/paper/ink combination with "best-in-class" longevity ?

2) Have Pt/Pd or Carbon prints been tested? If so, what have the tests revealed?

3) Metamerism is a problem with inkjet prints. My changing to a 100% rag paper with no OBA (optical brightening agents) went a long way to solving that problem - but my printer/paper/ink may now have shorter longevity. Are these concerns interrelated ?

4) When I made Pt/Pd prints (2004-2005), I tried a variety of coatings to give greater dMax. At the time, I found a UV-resistant acrylic varnish did the best job - but it had to be applied by brush and wasn't very uniform. I also wondered about its longevity and whether it would crack and damage the image. Any insights there ? Are there newer products which surmount these risks ?

Many many thanks !

tgtaylor
8-Dec-2011, 18:42
You're right, it does have an antique look and frankly that was what I was hoping to achieve by printing it as a Van Dyke.

Besides the fun of learning the various historical processes and reading about the photographers and others that pioneered the past for us, they open up a whole new door for a photographer to represent a view in a completely different light (or syntax, if you will) that simply is not available when confined to using just the syntax of digital or silver geletin (modern). Personally I wouldn't have bothered to shoot this view but visualizing it as a cyanotype or van dyke I thought that it would work. And it does! Used as an addition to the modern syntaxes, the historical syntaxes broaden both your photographic possibilities and your mind.

I apoligize to Kirk if I came off sarcastic :o But six years... It reminded me of the PhD candidate in Mathematics at Stanford in the late 1980's that shot his faculty mentor to death in his 20th year as a candidate. I guess that he got tired of waiting. Believe it or not but he is out on parole for some time now and never expressed any remorse stating publically he'd do it again. Go figure.

Lenny Eiger
8-Dec-2011, 18:59
\But six years...

TG, this is unfair. Cyanotypes are one of the simplest types of printmaking there is. I worked in platinum a long time ago, in the '70's and was one of the people who figured out how much ferric oxalate could actually go into solution. Now its all figured out, Bostick and Sullivan have kits for you, etc. Then it was harder. I tried gravure once. You have to learn to make an exposure on a plate, then etch it properly, then there are inking techniques, different kinds of paper to choose from. It is by no means easy. Inkjet printing can also be difficult, depending on what level you want to do it at. I've spent years getting my ink mixes just right, producing smooth gray ramps. All this takes time, and few of us can afford to test full time. I can't tell you how many times I have spoken to the company that makes the RIP I use and they have said something like, You're on your own we have no idea how to do that. Let us know when you figure it out."

I hasten to add that there are many other good printers here that have all had their own journeys with great printing. The difference between good and great is about who you are inside rather than a particular look that just happened in a darkroom (or not) somewhere.

Once someone asked me how long it took to print one of my favorite images. They were asking about the platinum process, but not realizing this, I thought for a moment and said, "3 years." We had a good laugh after which I explained to them that it took me three years to understand what that image needed. I printed it probably 100 times in that period, over and over, until I understood.

Lenny

Kirk Gittings
8-Dec-2011, 19:51
Lenny I understand completely, I am never totally satisfied with a print or a printing method. I immerse myself in a process. I started showing inkjet prints at museum and galleries in 2005 (and teaching it at universities). While the curators, collectors and students were satisfied, I knew there was much more to be learned. Fortuitously the medium was growing and maturing as I went along and there was always more to learn-better inks, better printers, better papers, better profilers etc. etc. It was a high time full of new opportunities and challenges and I suspect it will continue like that for awhile-always more to learn-always new ways of interpreting old negs and new ways of seeing the world with new processes.

tgtaylor
8-Dec-2011, 21:03
Lenny, I agree that the syntax’s that I have been working with of late, namely the cyanotype and van dyke, are simple to learn, but I find that the main difficulty lies not with the mechanics of the process – the mixing of the chemicals (I mix my own rather than using the ready-made kits that are available as it's loads of more fun for me that way even if I have to wait for a couple of days for a formula to ripen before using), but choosing the “right” image for a particular syntax, or visa verse., that is the real challenge along with the associated composition, lighting, etc. The rest is mechanics which you will learn with practice.

I also agree that the longer one uses a particular process/syntax, then the better ones work will become in using that syntax. Practice makes perfect, or nearly so, and the sooner one begins the journey the better.

gth
8-Dec-2011, 21:08
Some people asked for some images refered to in the OP. Here is one-though the actual print in a warm tone Piezography ink on mat paper and has a different "look" to it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31775421/Cont%20Land%20%2007.jpg

Thanks for posting that. We need pictures like that.

And your picture puts the verbiage in this and many other threads to shame I think.

One thing you have in common with ol' AA though - the Agony and Ecstasy of creating the perfect print.

Good luck with the show.

Kirk Gittings
8-Dec-2011, 21:20
Thanks Gerth.

MHMG
9-Dec-2011, 07:22
1) At the risk of over-simplification, is there an "executive summary" for those of us who are simply looking for a printer/paper/ink combination with "best-in-class" longevity ?


The AaI&A Conservation Display ratings, located in one of the AaI&A database columns, are a pretty good "summary" of the tolerated light exposure dose where "little or no noticeable fade" will occur. You can sort the list in ascending order, filter the list for various printer, inks, media, etc. to narrow the list to combinations you are interested in comparing. Take some time to check out the three tutorial documents linked at the top of the page. They will help you can come up to speed on all of these features and what the ratings mean.

Because I post updates as the tests proceed, some systems will be marked "Pass" and some will have a "+" mark on the Upper CDR limit meaning that they haven't had enough exposure dose yet to complete the rating. However, there are a couple of tricks that can be used to compare them to other already rated products. First, check the status column. It lists the dose that has accumulated so far. This value represents the lowest possible value it could conceivably get as a rating. You may find in many instances that a product still listed as passing or not yet fully rated has had a healthy exposure dose and thus may already be exceeding other products you are interested in. For example, the sample with ID#58 has gone 180 megalux hours after nearly five years on my light fade units and is still passing. It's an exceptionall stable system!

One other little trick. If you divide the Megalux hour rating values by two you get the predicted "display years" assuming the same illumination assumption that Wilhelm Imaging uses (i.e., 450 lux for 12 hours per day). So, for example, for a system with a conservation display rating of 60-80 megalux hours it would take 30-40 "Wilhelm years" on display to accumulate that dose, and the print would still show little or no noticeable fading caused by light. Bear in mind, however, that AaI&A endpoint criteria for "allowable fade" used to calculate the ratings are both different and more stringent than those used by WIR (ie. "little or no noticeable fade" versus "easily noticeable fade" at WIR test endpoints), so "display life" predictions based on AaI&A megalux hour ratings will generally be lower than display life ratings published by WIR for the same system. Why the discrepancy? In part the test methodology is different, but in part AaI&A ratings are aimed at the fine art and museum community whereas WIR ratings were originally developed for the more consumer-oriented photofinishing industry.



2) Have Pt/Pd or Carbon prints been tested? If so, what have the tests revealed?

Got some pure carbon ink on some fine art digital media in test to date (check out ID# 105, 141, and 144. No traditional Pt/Pd or carbon prints. I'd be happy to test them if the samples could be made. Pt,Pd processes should be inherently very light fast. Their historic achilles heel is the paper quality (not all artists selected paper wisely), and getting the process chemistry removed so that the paper durability isn't adversely impacted.


3) Metamerism is a problem with inkjet prints. My changing to a 100% rag paper with no OBA (optical brightening agents) went a long way to solving that problem - but my printer/paper/ink may now have shorter longevity. Are these concerns interrelated ?


Yes, but it's not a simple correlation. Some papers with low to moderate OBA content can perform quite well, while some OBA-free papers may have some issues with light bleaching of the paper and or coatings. OBA containing papers tend to "yellow" on whitepoint with exposure, while OBA-free papers that show bleaching tend to lighten and "whiten" as they bleach. You may personally tolerate one shift better than another. The AaI&A test reports give the reader the before/after colorimetric values, so you can discern all the details on media white point stability if you are inclined to do so. That said, you can also use the "Optical brightener" column to screen products for OBA content. The ones with OBA content marked "no" are OBA free, and the ones marked "yes (high)" tend to trigger the lower limit of the conservation display rating early due to considerable OBA burnout causing easily noticeable shifts in media white and highlight colors in the prints. It gets exceptionally problematic when trying to print monochrome images with delicate hues. Lastly, samples with OBA content marked "yes (low)" can often do as well or better some OBA-free media which show the bleaching issue. Some OBA-free media don't bleach at all.


4) When I made Pt/Pd prints (2004-2005), I tried a variety of coatings to give greater dMax. At the time, I found a UV-resistant acrylic varnish did the best job - but it had to be applied by brush and wasn't very uniform. I also wondered about its longevity and whether it would crack and damage the image. Any insights there ? Are there newer products which surmount these risks ?


Coatings are a mixed bag. They can improve permanence of the artwork, but they can also have an adverse affect on permanence as well. One has to test the specific system to make this determination. It's very hard to give general guidance on the effects of coatings. Some members have submitted samples with post coatings, and coatings also have a dedicated subject column in the AaI&A database. As a rule, I try to get both coated and uncoated versions into test on the same unit, so we can do a direct comparison of the performance. Coatings can also impact physical properties over time, ie. tendencies of the print to curl, flake, crack, etc. Again, sometime there's a benefit, sometime it's a detriment.

Ken, thanks for joining the AaI&A digital print research program recently and for your kind donation.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

bob carnie
9-Dec-2011, 07:37
Mark I have two questions regarding silver gelatin prints or even other prints in general.

How do you know that prints supplied to you are in fact properly processed and washed?
I know of many workers who are not up to speed in that regard, as well as some labs.

second question. Would not poor workflow result in improper data for a range of products yes/no?

MHMG
9-Dec-2011, 08:51
Mark I have two questions regarding silver gelatin prints or even other prints in general.


How do you know that prints supplied to you are in fact properly processed and washed?
I know of many workers who are not up to speed in that regard, as well as some labs.


I don't, but I rely on good instincts and knowledge of craft. No testing lab can be absolutely certain that the products in test represent highest quality levels or that they were documented flawlessly, but we certainly strive for this outcome, and this is where my imaging and materials science experience also comes into play. For example, the Ilford Gallerie print I received from Digital Silver Imaging has a significantly lower Dmax than what Ilford claims is possible for this paper. It may be exposure limitations of the Durst 51 printer, or it may be something that the lab can improve by redoing the sample. So, I've flagged it and it's being redone for me. Digital Silver is a reputable lab, and Eric, the owner, knows what the project is for and is aiming for max process quality on all counts. I'm confident that we will get there.

I also try to test completely independent replicates (e.g., submitted by more than one member at different times) when time and resources permit. I also closely inspect the samples" initial image quality, to double check that the printers are performing as expected. Additionally, I flag tests where the ongoing test results seem odd in some way, and will pull them from the database if need be, or make specific notation in the reports that something seems unusual. Such samples make good candidates for a redo. That said, the quality of the samples and the documentation I'm getting from members is almost always outstanding, and so far, I've felt no need to pull any samples from testing. It's as good as it gets.



second question. Would not poor workflow result in improper data for a range of products yes/no?

I'm not sure what you mean by poor workflow. Do you mean by the printmaker, or by the laboratory testing procedures, or both? Perhaps you can elaborate.

Each sample in testing is unique in one way or another. There's even testing variability to contend with which is why I run things in batches and often do side-by-side paired comparisons. These analytical techniques help to distinguish what is normal variability and what is not. In some sense, it's important to capture the real world process variation in the AaI&A database. It's baked into the research:)

tgtaylor
9-Dec-2011, 08:55
And what about the permanance other historical processes such as the cyanotype and van dyke? I've read that the former is one of the most permanent provided it is printed and maintained in a non-alkline environment and that the van dyke is much more permanent than previously thought.

Letoco
9-Dec-2011, 09:05
<...>Personally I wouldn't have bothered to shoot this view but visualizing it as a cyanotype or van dyke I thought that it would work. And it does! Used as an addition to the modern syntaxes, the historical syntaxes broaden both your photographic possibilities and your mind.

<..>


I have to say, there you make a good point verbally as much as photographically. Indeed, the picture in itself is almost deceptively banal. But the printing technique made it rich with inner content. Bravo, once again.

Letoco
9-Dec-2011, 09:20
Some people asked for some images refered to in the OP. Here is one-though the actual print in a warm tone Piezography ink on mat paper and has a different "look" to it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31775421/Cont%20Land%20%2007.jpg

From the technical point of view the contrast in this pictures was put on steroids. One would almost like to take sunglasses to look at it. From the aesthetical point of view the picture is pretending so loud that it hurts. What was perhaps dramatic in reality become hysterical in the print. Nevertheless, I’m confident that anyone with your perseverance in printing apprenticeship eventually will come to good prints from any initial direction. For that hat down to you too!

bob carnie
9-Dec-2011, 09:29
You are making criticism's from a jpeg image?
What axe are you grinding here?

From the technical point of view the contrast in this pictures was put on steroids. One would almost like to take sunglasses to look at it. From the aesthetical point of view the picture is pretending so loud that it hurts. What was perhaps dramatic in reality become hysterical in the print. Nevertheless, I’m confident that anyone with your perseverance in printing apprenticeship eventually will come to good prints from any initial direction. For that hat down to you too!

Letoco
9-Dec-2011, 10:17
Cool down. Making a judgement from a picture exposed for a judgement. How come you're surprised?

bob carnie
9-Dec-2011, 10:30
I'm cool, do you have a name? or are you here just to piss on people .

Cool down. Making a judgement from a picture exposed for a judgement. How come you're surprised?

John NYC
9-Dec-2011, 10:36
Cool down. Making a judgement from a picture exposed for a judgement. How come you're surprised?

I must say you are making a big splash on your third day of membership! Would love to see your work so we can gauge the gravitas of your considerable effluence of opinion.

Letoco
9-Dec-2011, 11:57
«*I like to think that I am beyond the need of affirmation of colleagues, but in truth I think I'm not. To some extent that thinking is just a bit of defensiveness.*» (Kirk)

I’m sure that Kirk, himself an advocate of a harsh critique of his students, as professional as he is is also able to take a well meant critique of - one of his picture. It’s not a critique but accolades that are a danger to Masters.

Kirk Gittings
9-Dec-2011, 12:04
The difference is that I don't give harsh or frank criticism with such snide phrasing-something you need to learn if you want to continue participating here. Your comments are presented rudely and we have low tolerance for such rudeness.

BTW you probably need to calibrate your monitor. On my laptop it appears to contrasty. On the desktop with a calibrated monitor where I edit images it is perfect.

Kirk Gittings
9-Dec-2011, 12:15
OK, I tried to be constructive but....enough of your rudeness and baiting.

rdenney
9-Dec-2011, 14:49
On my laptop it appears to contrasty. On the desktop with a calibrated monitor where I edit images it is perfect.

Ditto. On my laptop, the highlights block up and the shadows lose separation. But I can change my view angle on the display up and down and bring each back. A person of lesser technique would have had to choose one end of the scale or the other.

I tend to agree with the need for sunglasses. That's one of the things I like about this image. When standing at that scene, you need sunglasses. Capturing that intensity in a black and white print seems to me a positive outcome.

It reminds me of an Edward Abbey description, though I can't put my finger on which one. But his language approached being gaudy. It's the nature of the place.

Where was the picture made? Is that Cabezon?

Rick "the desert ain't for sissies" Denney

tgtaylor
9-Dec-2011, 15:01
I have to say, there you make a good point verbally as much as photographically. Indeed, the picture in itself is almost deceptively banal. But the printing technique made it rich with inner content. Bravo, once again.

Thanks again Letoco.

It's not easy finding a subject worthy of a sheet of film (especially 8x10 nowadays) but a command of a variety of printing techniques (ie. syntaxes) increases the opportunities. Personally I think that Ansel Adams, probably the most profilic photographer to date, made a mistake by eschewing the earlier syntaxes. If he would have embraced and added them to his toolbox, we would have many more of his images to admire.

Kirk Gittings
9-Dec-2011, 15:04
Ditto. On my laptop, the highlights block up and the shadows lose separation. But I can change my view angle on the display up and down and bring each back. A person of lesser technique would have had to choose one end of the scale or the other.

I tend to agree with the need for sunglasses. That's one of the things I like about this image. When standing at that scene, you need sunglasses. Capturing that intensity in a black and white print seems to me a positive outcome.

It reminds me of an Edward Abbey description, though I can't put my finger on which one. But his language approached being gaudy. It's the nature of the place.

Where was the picture made? Is that Cabezon?

Rick "the desert ain't for sissies" Denney

Thanks. Damn you are good. Yes that is Cabezon.

Erik Larsen
9-Dec-2011, 15:39
Kirk, I think the photograph is stunnIng. I'm not sure what letocos problem with it was but I think your print brings out the best this scene could offer regarding time, space, and depth. It's beautiful!
Regards
Erik

Kirk Gittings
9-Dec-2011, 15:44
Thanks Eric. He was just trying to get a rise out of me....again.

That image is extremely satisfying to me personally as it encompasses allot of what I feel for the "Anasazi Landscape" here in SW. FWIW that image is the second most widely published, sold, collected and exhibited image I have ever made and I was very happy when the curator of the Contemplative Landscape show selected it.

Erik Larsen
9-Dec-2011, 16:01
Thanks Eric. He was just trying to get a rise out of me....again.

That image is extremely satisfying to me personally as it encompasses allot of what I feel for the "Anasazi Landscape" here in SW. FWIW that image is the second most widely published, sold, collected and exhibited image I have ever made and I was very happy when the curator of the Contemplative Landscape show selected it.

I'm not surprised it is popular. You have to love those SW skies! I can empathize with the personal satisfaction you get from it, unfortunately for my stuff the prints I have the same feelings for nobody else gets it:)
regards
Erik

Kirk Gittings
9-Dec-2011, 16:10
Erik, Some of my favorite images no one else gets. I think that while they are very personally satisfying they are too idiosyncratic to comunicate with anyone else. You would have to be inside my head to get them. But that's ok right? Sometimes images just have an enthusiastic audience of one. I think any working artist has allot of those images.

Peter De Smidt
9-Dec-2011, 17:12
The image is terrific. I really wish that I could see the show.

mdm
9-Dec-2011, 17:17
On my calibrated low end monitor it looks rather good. Just as it would have if you were there. Thanks for posting it.

GabrielSeri
9-Dec-2011, 18:02
It looks great Kirk. I would love to see the print in person to admire and compare with a normal silver print and see how technology has caught up.

Lenny Eiger
9-Dec-2011, 18:23
Guys, there's a lot of different styles. There's no such thing as a value judgement about a photograph that's deliberate. The image as presented is what the artist was intending to do, we know this because Kirk has done it consistently, for many years, I might add. You can't say its wrong. You can either like it or not. Some people like things that are contrasty and some don't.

I personally print much softer but if I want to diss Kirk for contrast I have to also toss out Robert Frank, Bill Brandt, AA and a pile of others. I am a great fan of Robert Frank, for example, even tho' my work is not like his at all. I'm certainly not willing to take print quality as the only arbiter of whether someone has something to say or not.

As a printer, I have to be able to print in the style of my clients, rather than my own, and learn to appreciate it.

The only way you can judge is how successful someone is - is to look at what they were intending and see how far they got with their concept. It is either superficial to their message or deep.

Lenny

Kirk Gittings
9-Dec-2011, 18:30
Let me say too that there is something to be said (IMHO) about doing a scan in the style of the artist, delivering a targeted 16 bit file with a full histogram for me to begin my PS work on the file. It makes my job easier and with less risk of posterization in transitional tone areas. Going back to my first post I mentioned that I had Lenny redo my original Imacon scans for this show. Lenny "gets" my printing style and I appreciate it.

Merg Ross
9-Dec-2011, 22:16
Some people like things that are contrasty and some don't.
The only way you can judge is how successful someone is - is to look at what they were intending and see how far they got with their concept.

Lenny

Knowing of his long and successful photographic career, I presume that Kirk exhibits work representative of his finest technique and vision. Certainly, concluding the worth of his work from a casual monitor viewing would be a misunderstanding of the photographic process.

The manner of printing, the subject of this thread, is an interesting subject. Some members are familiar with my affiliation with Brett Weston and his father. I find it interesting, in particular with Brett, how his printing changed over the years from full-scale to high-contrast. Quite simply, his printing changed with his vision; that should always be the goal of a fine printer.

bob carnie
10-Dec-2011, 06:17
The prints that I have seen of Brett Weston have very deep blacks , to the point of losing shadow detail. My take is he felt the shadows needed to create the form of the photograph and by printing down he achieved some of the nicest prints I have seen in person.
As a printer , I admire his choice , most people talk about having extremely long tonal ranges, succulent detail shadows with glimmering highlights... what a crock of talk.
He has taken the image and broken it down to where he feels should be, if it means sacrificing shadow detail so be it.
When printing for others there always is this battle of wills as to how the image should look like, the photographer or the printer, usually it boils down to communication between the two, the photographer detailing how the look should be, and the printer pulling up tricks of the trade to match that vision.
There are a lot of times the two do not agree and the relationship has to end.
Personally for my own work I prefer very deep prints, and due to Mr Westons prints am going darker in balance.
Not to say a long scale pt pd with believable blacks is not ok as well.
But I still prefer Silver Prints to any media, though Carbon Pigment Prints are very , very compelling.



Knowing of his long and successful photographic career, I presume that Kirk exhibits work representative of his finest technique and vision. Certainly, concluding the worth of his work from a casual monitor viewing would be a misunderstanding of the photographic process.

The manner of printing, the subject of this thread, is an interesting subject. Some members are familiar with my affiliation with Brett Weston and his father. I find it interesting, in particular with Brett, how his printing changed over the years from full-scale to high-contrast. Quite simply, his printing changed with his vision; that should always be the goal of a fine printer.

sanking
10-Dec-2011, 12:06
First, congratulations to Kirk for the exhibit, and for adapting PZ printing to his vision.

Indeed, judging work by a causal monitor viewing shows a misunderstanding of the photographic process, certainly of digital inkjet printing. Anyone who would suggest otherwise probably never calibrated a monitor to output.

And as Lenny notes, there is certainly no one correct printing style. Emerson advocated a very flat printing style where maximum reflective Dmax was no greater than what most of us today would associate with Zone 5 or 6.

One of the things I most like about digital printing, whether to make a negative for carbon transfer, or making pigment inkjet prints , is the ability one has to control tonal values. With good PS work you can get detail and separation in the deepest shadows, keep all of thehighlight detail and still have good contrast in the mid-tones. Great silver printers know how to do this with camera negatives with variable contrast silver papers by split contrast printing, but it is virtually impossible with long scale graded silver papers and with alternative processes like pt/pd and carbon transfer. When working this way one's vision is immediately expanded by the potential. I personally avoid like the plague large shadow areas that are completely without tone. If you see this in one of my prints the reason will most likely be because I made a mistake in exposure that resulted in no detail in the shadows. Unfortunately it happens!

Sandy

Kirk Gittings
16-Dec-2011, 09:18
Great! I just sold one of the Piezography prints from the exhibit to the New Mexico History Museum. I am out of town and this is the best image of the print I had available.

VinR
16-Dec-2011, 09:36
Fabulous images on your website. Thank you.

Robert Hall
16-Dec-2011, 09:43
Validation enough I would say, at least it would be for me.

Congrats on that Kirk.

Wayne Lambert
16-Dec-2011, 11:17
That's the one I liked best. It's a beautiful photograph. Congratulations Kirk.
Wayne

BradS
16-Dec-2011, 11:55
From the technical point of view the contrast in this pictures was put on steroids. One would almost like to take sunglasses to look at it. From the aesthetical point of view the picture is pretending so loud that it hurts. What was perhaps dramatic in reality become hysterical in the print.....

Kirk, I did not find anything rude in this criticism. Seems like a very normal "art school" critique to me. He has stated his opinion....nothing more nothing less. His choice of words may seem inflamatory but...it may just be a cultural difference. For what ever it may be worth, I happen to agree with him. The contrast, nay, the tonal range exibited in this print does push the limits. Maybe, that was your desire. I too find it a bit over the top.

Finally, may I suggest that you might be a little more reticent to excercise your moderation privelege on comments which are directed toward you. It looks bad on your part. I'll just leave it at that.

Mike Anderson
16-Dec-2011, 21:04
Kirk, I did not find anything rude in this criticism. Seems like a very normal "art school" critique to me. He has stated his opinion....nothing more nothing less. His choice of words may seem inflamatory but...it may just be a cultural difference. For what ever it may be worth, I happen to agree with him. The contrast, nay, the tonal range exibited in this print does push the limits. Maybe, that was your desire. I too find it a bit over the top.

Finally, may I suggest that you might be a little more reticent to excercise your moderation privelege on comments which are directed toward you. It looks bad on your part. I'll just leave it at that.

FWIW I think the person in question was intentionally rude, had some weird agenda and was putting a damper on at least one really useful thread. I don't buy the "cultural difference" explanation. Glad he's gone or taking a break or whatever.

...Mike

Brian Ellis
16-Dec-2011, 22:05
Kirk, I did not find anything rude in this criticism. Seems like a very normal "art school" critique to me. He has stated his opinion....nothing more nothing less. His choice of words may seem inflamatory but...it may just be a cultural difference. For what ever it may be worth, I happen to agree with him. The contrast, nay, the tonal range exibited in this print does push the limits. Maybe, that was your desire. I too find it a bit over the top.

Finally, may I suggest that you might be a little more reticent to excercise your moderation privelege on comments which are directed toward you. It looks bad on your part. I'll just leave it at that.

How do you know that "the tonal range exhibited in this print does push the limits?" You haven't seen the print.

There's a major difference between an image displayed on a computer monitor, which is a back-lit, low-resolution device of approximately 100 ppi, and a print. And of course monitors aren't identical. What one person sees on his or her monitor isn't necessarily what others see on theirs. For those two reasons among others it's largely meaningless to critique the technical aspects of a photograph that's only been seen on a computer monitor.

Which was part of the problem with the "critique" in question. Another part was the use of unnecessarily rude, inflammatory terms such as saying one needed sunglasses to view the image. Apart from indicating ignorance (it didn't seem to occur to him that maybe he needed sunglasses because his monitor was set to factory specs, which typically are too bright for evaluating photographs), it was unnecessarily rude. It's easy enough to say an image looks too bright without saying one needs sunglasses to look at it.

BradS
16-Dec-2011, 23:08
never the less, I am entitled to my opinion - am I not?
Let us not fight about such matters.
Let the discourse return to the subject.

Mike Anderson
17-Dec-2011, 00:05
never the less, I am entitled to my opinion - am I not?
Let us not fight about such matters.
Let the discourse return to the subject.

Oh yeah I completely agree with that. I was just voicing my opinion too.

...Mike

John NYC
17-Dec-2011, 00:22
I read all three day's worth of Letoco's posts, and I get a sense that it is odd that he/she had only been a member for three days. The tone was of someone who has been here a while. And the fact that two of the only several threads posted on were challenging Kirk in various ways does at least hint something else was going on. Or perhaps the person was just a long time large format person who had never heard of this forum who likes to come on like a ton of bricks from day one. Either way, he/she was getting close to being on my star-studded ignore list of people who complain/criticize but never help honestly, defend a heartfelt opinion wisely and post images of their work at times.

bob carnie
17-Dec-2011, 05:38
How hard is it for a longtime member with a grudge to take on a fake name and start posting crap.
I have my grudge with Kirk as well for something he dragged me into a year back.

Kirk Gittings
17-Dec-2011, 07:13
I have my grudge with Kirk as well for something he dragged me into a year back.

I'll drink to that!