-
Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
I fear this maybe a rather open question.
I photograph on 5x4 B&W stock using the zone system to push or pull development or N as required to produce the best neg I can.
I have access to a Flexitight X5 scanner that will scan as RAW files.
Question 1. Will I get as good neutral prints with as wide tonal range on a Epson R3000 printer (using fine art paper) as I do with my fibre wet prints? Would I be best to use the Quadtone RIP with carbon ink set?
Question2. Anyone have any links to workflow for processing film for scanning & digital printing or is it the same as if you use with an enlarger?
Reason, It's becoming differcult to keep the darkroom due to kids comming on the scene.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
In response to your title question:
IMHO wet prints are still by far the nicest most of the time. I have produced inkjet prints I am very pleased with, especially for very large prints or where a lot of manipulation has been required to get good separation of tones, but in the majority of cases I still prefer wet prints by a fair margin.
Neutrality is rarely a problem these days.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Way better and archival til the end of time as long as you use the term "archival" in the description.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
even a poorly processed wet print seems to last a long while.
i have some that were on bad rc paper from the 1980s
probably not fixed or washed "long enough" and they look like
i just did them ... in prints seem to shift colors more ( like color prints do )
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jnanian
even a poorly processed wet print seems to last a long while.
i have some that were on bad rc paper from the 1980s
probably not fixed or washed "long enough" and they look like
i just did them ... in prints seem to shift colors more ( like color prints do )
I would respectfully disagree. I have some stained wet prints. Processed them too fast.... i like wet prints better than inkjet.... but inkjet is easier to make, cheaper also. The right printer, ink and paper combination and you will not see that shift. Mounted and framed you cannot tell the difference without a magnifying glass. I am waiting for epson to increase the resolution of there photo printers before i upgrade my 4800.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Judging by the print exchange I just participated in, either system is capable of high end results given proper skill and materials. I'm not going to call one better as there are so many ways to output things on so many materials, etc...
Sorta like judging platinum prints against silver prints; different results with different material. F Holland Day quit photography when platinum became scarce rather than adapt. I think silver is more useful for me and I'd adapt if forced or compelled. But I like wet prints for B&W.
There is a big skill step to change systems. For low volume, digital isn't cheaper, mostly due to the software and the feeding of the inkjet printer. If you try to exactly emulate one particular process with digital, there are going to be differences.
If your parenting is taking time away from your schedule, for the first year anyways, your schedule is gonna be messed up with their shorter unique sleep patterns and you'll have to find sleep when you can. After that time period, you can put the kid/kids to bed in the evening and ignore TV/Internet and hit the darkroom.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
You can do things digitally that are nearly impossible with traditional methods, so many of my digital prints could not exist as analog prints - so in that sense they are better.
I use a baryta paper in an Epson R3000 with the Harrington RIP and stock ink - they look really nice, and under glass or in a portfolio book it would be hard to tell. But side by side, the wet prints have more depth and grain looks better, blacks are nicer, the paper is glossy but the tones seem to be embedded deeper versus ink that sits on top of the paper.
The best I've found is the silver prints made from a Durst Lambda like Bob Carnie will make you at Elevator Digital in Toronto. Not cheap but the best of both worlds.
Otherwise it is best to just say that they are different and each can be very fine and respectable. I much rather have a clean, good inkjet than a silver print full of Spotone and excuses - I hate defects worse than the last bit of tonal density.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
You are going to get responses all over the map. It will come down to personal preference. Executed well, you can get very nice (and long lasting) results with either process. Personal taste for qualities of the final print, and preferences for which process is more enjoyable, will determine which way for you to go.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greg Miller
You are going to get responses all over the map. It will come down to personal preference.
I suspected I would get a lot in oppersite directions Greg. I guess I was looking at it more from a scientific comparison if they is one, ie from the amount of tonal range / contrast each can produce.
I fully appreciate viewing of prints is totally subjective.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
I agree that inkjet prints and wet prints are two different mediums as far as comparison methods are concerned. I use an epson 1400 with the Harrison QTR and piezography inkset, wet scanned on an epson v700. This end result is more comparable to a platinum/pladium print on matte paper. I find the result beautiful in tonality. I believe if your goal is to produce archival quality inkjet prints with little metarism and no color cast you would be best served with a dedicated black & white printing system in combination with a third party carbon ink set and quad tone rip software. Scanner/printer/inkset included you are looking at an investment of around $800 and this will give you a couple hundred 8x10's
You will find alot of information on this type of system through the following links:
http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/
http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html
Good luck.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rudgey
I was looking at it more from a scientific comparison if they is one, ie from the amount of tonal range / contrast each can produce.
For that, a reflection densitometer will tell you what you need to know. Perhaps someone has the numbers handy.
I have a silver print I made in 1971 on glossy paper that is no longer available, selenium toned, and it has a very rich black. I'll compare it to one of my inkjet prints. My guess is that they are very close in terms of dMax and dMin. Probably indistinguishable.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Scanner/printer/inkset included you are looking at an investment of around $800
Thanks David,
Well I have use of a great 5x4 scanner, the Hasselblad X5, I have an Epson R3000 so its just the cost of the inks & rip.
I would imagine the carbon inks replace all the colour set? Would that mean they cannot be reinstalled? as they are new full ones at the moment.
Are you then printing on Epson cold press fine art paper?
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
It's not too difficult to produce inkjet prints that are exremely close to traditional darkroom prints, the Ilford (Harman) FB Baryta Inkjet papers are superb although a bit pricey.
I've finally bought a decent printer and scanner to digitise some work for publication and made some comparison prints. In fact the negatives were scanned and digital negatives then platinum prints made a few months before I made silver gelatin prints for exhibitions, the Inkjet prints made with my R2400 are comparable both in tonality and image colour to the Forte Polywarmtone versions.
Ian
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Otherwise it is best to just say that they are different and each can be very fine and respectable. I much rather have a clean, good inkjet than a silver print full of Spotone and excuses - I hate defects worse than the last bit of tonal density.
:)
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
The big decision is going to be whether you go with a smoother (glossy) approach to your ink jets, which is more akin to the look of traditional photo paper versus the matte, textural papers that are unique to inkjet and some alt processes.
The ability to make something that looks like a giant Platinum print is pretty attractive. I don't want to upset anyone by saying they are as good as Platinum prints, but you can head in that direction....
(I mostly want a traditional glossy look myself, I got my fill of "artists papers" back in the early days of Iris printing and the early, funkier inkjet printers.)
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Convenietly a silver print and an inkjet representation is sitting on the viewing station so I made a quick comparison between the two. Dismissing the antiquity of my digital tools I looked for a noticable unpleasantness between the two methods and was immediatly struck with how the border between light and darker tones looked like "cutouts" placed on the inkjet version but were smooth and unnoticable on the silver print. Both were printed on smooth glossy paper. I suspect this is because, as noted above, the ink is deposited on top of the paper whereas in the silver print the silver molecules are imbeded inside the paper.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7112/7...5e247fa4_c.jpg
Also I split toned the wet print with Kodak Brown and selenium toner which imparted a slight but noticable brown tone to the silver print which is hinted at in the scan above but that may be due to my equiptment/scanning ability.
In sum, then, for me the real silver print rules!
Thomas
Thomas
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rudgey
Thanks David,
Well I have use of a great 5x4 scanner, the Hasselblad X5, I have an Epson R3000 so its just the cost of the inks & rip.
I would imagine the carbon inks replace all the colour set? Would that mean they cannot be reinstalled? as they are new full ones at the moment.
Are you then printing on Epson cold press fine art paper?
Yes, the carbon inks replace the color set. You can just swap them out and run a few cleaning cycles if the color set has been installed but not used. If it has been used they sell a flush kit, then you may install the carbon set. You have the choice of using a gloss system with your printer as well!
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c....egory.54255/.f
I am printing on inkpress picture rag warm and cool tone as well as hahnemuhle bright white.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tgtaylor
Convenietly a silver print and an inkjet representation is sitting on the viewing station so I made a quick comparison between the two. Dismissing the antiquity of my digital tools I looked for a noticable unpleasantness between the two methods and was immediatly struck with how the border between light and darker tones looked like "cutouts" placed on the inkjet version but were smooth and unnoticable on the silver print. Both were printed on smooth glossy paper. I suspect this is because, as noted above, the ink is deposited on top of the paper whereas in the silver print the silver molecules are imbeded inside the paper.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7112/7...5e247fa4_c.jpg
Also I split toned the wet print with Kodak Brown and selenium toner which imparted a slight but noticable brown tone to the silver print which is hinted at in the scan above but that may be due to my equiptment/scanning ability.
In sum, then, for me the real silver print rules!
Thomas
Thomas
Nice Thomas, BEAUTIFUL tones. I tend to see better "depth" from a wet print, however, the control with the digital workflow is simply more practical for me. Wet printing is a very time consuming in art unto itself and I have a great respect for people who can do it well. I have two small children and can easily take a break from my processing workflow to be with them/tend to their needs. I went with the digital workflow when I compared wet/piezography side by side and have been very pleased with the results thus far.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tgtaylor
....Dismissing the antiquity of my digital tools I looked for a noticable unpleasantness between the two methods and was immediatly struck with how the border between light and darker tones looked like "cutouts" placed on the inkjet version but were smooth and unnoticable on the silver print.
Yeah but... that could be over-sharpening of the digital file and/or the older printer with the coarser droplets, etc. Some papers do better than others with ink and printer combinations, etc. You may just be a better silver printer than a digital one!
Constructing a really good test is really, really hard as the recent attempts to compare a medium format digital back to large format film showed... there are so many variables and operator skill is a huge factor as well.
That's why this has never been (or will be?) definitively answered. A mediocre silver print will be crushed by an expert digital print and vice-versa.
I think it is really a good idea to let go of "the absolute best". There will always be a better profile or scanner or ink set. You could always develop the negative better, the enlarger could be stabler, the chemistry optimal... go with what works to get you 95% there and tweak what is practical to improve within your time and budget.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Yeah I think the important thing is that you can make amazing prints with either method. I recently got an Epson 4900, it's my 4th inkjet printer and the first one that's not totally frustrating. It just seems to work.
On some of the new papers (Canson Infinity papers) I've made some really sweet prints. I haven't made silver prints in a long time and was never very good at it. So I have nothing to compare them to. But I think most "experts" would say they are at least "good" prints.
One advantage with digital is that you can bring all the elements of photoshop and that sort of thing into maximizing your negatives. You can do burning and dodging with a level of precision that I think is unavailable to anyone except the most very skilled digital printers. Since my negatives are all over the place, I tend to do a lot in PS before printing.
If you can't do darkroom printing anymore, I think you'll be able to do inkjet prints and be satisfied with the results. It's a learning curve, like anything else.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Are SUVs better than pick-up trucks yet?
If I could make an inkjet print by hand (instead of a machine) on homemade materials, I might actually go with inkjet prints.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
I have been showing silver prints along side inkjet since 2005 in museum and gallery shows with a great deal of success. At this point I am quite satisfied with both. I don't try to make an inkjet print look like a silver print, but try and make it rich and expressive on its own. I have found that some images print better one way than the other. Generally I try everything shot on film in silver first. If it works there that is where I stop. If not I will have a drum scan done and work on it in ink. Digital capture of course I work up in ink first. I'm very tempted to try Carnies silver prints from digital files and will probably give that a try this coming year.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
I printed in a darkroom for about 15 years, mostly b&w but some color. I've been printing digitally for about 9 years, b&w and color. I've exhibited darkroom and ink jet prints side by side in various exhibits and nobody has ever noticed any difference, or if they have they haven't said anything about it. I've shown both type of prints in portfolio reviews at photography workshops and neither the instructors nor the participants have realized they were two different types of prints until I told them. I happen to prefer ink jet because I can do so much more in Photoshop than I can in a darkroom and because so much time in a darkroom is spent doing drudge work (mixing chemicals, jiggling trays, cleaning up, etc.) rather than actually working on a print. Others prefer darkroom prints and that's fine for them.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
While this thread still remains civil, I will comment. Yesterday, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee were at the house for lunch and an afternoon of conversation. Those familiar with their work, will appreciate their years of dedication to the silver contact print on Azo and Lodima papers, developed in Amidol.
I never thought that I would live to see them take on the digital printing process. They have in a big way (and with big prints)! In their judgement, their ink prints are indistinguishable from their silver prints. It has not come easily, with months and years of perfecting the process. They are in fact perfectionists, and their conclusion carries a lot of weight in any such discussion.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
I tend to see better "depth" from a wet print, however, the control with the digital workflow is simply more practical for me. Wet printing is a very time consuming in art unto itself and I have a great respect for people who can do it well. I have two small children and can easily take a break from my processing workflow to be with them/tend to their needs. I went with the digital workflow when I compared wet/piezography side by side and have been very pleased with the results thus far.
By all means, David, do work with that method which is practical for you. Although I don't particarly care for setting up the trays, cleaning them when through, and drying the RC prints with a hand dryer or setting up the screens for the fiber, the silver print is the most practical method for me since I am currently a better silver printer than digital printer.
But lets face it: How many images are you really going to print regardless of the method? True if you are an accomplished software jockey you can probably work thru a successful print quicker than in the darkroom but the savings in time shouldn't be all that great as it takes the printer time to print the negative just as it takes 3 to 3.5 minutes to process an RC or Fiber print. You have to dry the wet print – about another 2 or 3 minutes with a hand dryer for RC but you have to wait for the ink to stabilize too (Epson says to wait at least 15 minutes before touching the print). The real savings in time comes when you need to print several copies of the same image. With digital you simply tell the printer to print x copies and can walk off; with wet prints you must print each one personally which, if you made careful notes of how you arrived at the final working proof, is simple but monotonous. You're just a machine at that point. You can't just walk away from it at that point like you can with digital. But how often do you do that?
Perhaps more compelling is the need to work with hazardous chemicals in the wet darkroom – the “fume room” so many have complained of. Using a citric acid stop bath and TF-5 for a fix I have eliminated practically all the fumes except from the Dektol which in my case is minimal as I process the paper in a separate room which is ventilated by an exhaust fan. I'm only in there 3 or 3.5 minutes at a time depending on the paper I'm printing on.
Finally I find silver printing more straight-forward and intuitive than digital printing where it is necessary to master the software which has the tendency to change. For example a certain keystroke on PS Version X may not produce the same result on Version Y with printer Z.
Thomas
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Petronio
Yeah but... that could be over-sharpening of the digital file and/or the older printer with the coarser droplets, etc. Some papers do better than others with ink and printer combinations, etc. You may just be a better silver printer than a digital one!
Constructing a really good test is really, really hard as the recent attempts to compare a medium format digital back to large format film showed... there are so many variables and operator skill is a huge factor as well.
That's why this has never been (or will be?) definitively answered. A mediocre silver print will be crushed by an expert digital print and vice-versa.
I think it is really a good idea to let go of "the absolute best". There will always be a better profile or scanner or ink set. You could always develop the negative better, the enlarger could be stabler, the chemistry optimal... go with what works to get you 95% there and tweak what is practical to improve within your time and budget.
Agreed - especially with the last paragraph.
Thomas
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
After 20+ years of intensive silver printing in the darkroom and 8+ years learning digital and exploiting the evolving offerings, I have also come to the conclusion that both mediums have equal expressive quality. Like Frank, I have preferred the "traditional" B&W fiber-based look in my digital printing. After 2 years of working with Cone's K6/K7 inks for glossy papers, I have found the look I want with digital printing. The thing that put it over the top for me was using the glossy inks on glossy papers with a gloss overcoat made the image appear to be "in" the paper rather than "on" the paper that I found using matte inks/papers. This is the same look that I have enjoyed with darkroom prints for years.
To the OP's other question, I have found that the density range with glossy ink/paper/overcoat is greater than what I accomplished in the darkroom. For reference, my old Zone VI Brilliant paper (that I loved) had a max density range of approx 2.3 log. With either Canson Infinity Baryta or Cone5 and gloss overcoat, I find my max density range is 2.6 to 2.7 log. This can make a difference depending on the density range of the image you are printing and the way you are trying to print it. Another large difference, besides productivity, is that you can more easily use the entire tonal range in digital due with all of the tools available.
for the OP, I would say that they are both of equal quality and will provide an equal quality of expression - however they are still subtly different - to a knowledgeable audience that is looking for it.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Merg Ross
While this thread still remains civil, I will comment. Yesterday, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee were at the house for lunch and an afternoon of conversation. Those familiar with their work, will appreciate their years of dedication to the silver contact print on Azo and Lodima papers, developed in Amidol.
I never thought that I would live to see them take on the digital printing process. They have in a big way (and with big prints)! In their judgement, their ink prints are indistinguishable from their silver prints. It has not come easily, with months and years of perfecting the process. They are in fact perfectionists, and their conclusion carries a lot of weight in any such discussion.
Merg, I knew that was happening with them. It is not surprising at all to me given the response I have personally gotten from top notch "old school" silver printers, and knowledgeable curators. I do think however that printers with a background in fine silver printing have a distinct advantage when they take up ink printing.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
[QUOTE=Kirk Gittings;867974]Merg, I knew that was happening with them. It is not surprising at all to me given the response I have personally gotten from top notch "old school" silver printers, and knowledgeable curators. I do think however that printers with a background in fine silver printing have a distinct advantage when they take up ink printing.[/QUOTE]
I think you raise an interesting a valid point there, my 40+ years of darkroom printing has certainly made if very much easier for me to make digital prints as well.
Ian
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Yes, good points Thomas. I think it boils down to being comfortable with your system enough to produce repeatable and predictable results that satisfy the most important critic, oneself!
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
[QUOTE=IanG;867979]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirk Gittings
Merg, I knew that was happening with them. It is not surprising at all to me given the response I have personally gotten from top notch "old school" silver printers, and knowledgeable curators. I do think however that printers with a background in fine silver printing have a distinct advantage when they take up ink printing.[/QUOTE]
I think you raise an interesting a valid point there, my 40+ years of darkroom printing has certainly made if very much easier for me to make digital prints as well.
Ian
Easier probably, but I think it is more about knowing what a good rich print is.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sully75
Yeah I think the important thing is that you can make amazing prints with either method. I recently got an Epson 4900, it's my 4th inkjet printer and the first one that's not totally frustrating. It just seems to work.
On some of the new papers (Canson Infinity papers) I've made some really sweet prints. I haven't made silver prints in a long time and was never very good at it. So I have nothing to compare them to. But I think most "experts" would say they are at least "good" prints.
One advantage with digital is that you can bring all the elements of photoshop and that sort of thing into maximizing your negatives. You can do burning and dodging with a level of precision that I think is unavailable to anyone except the most very skilled digital printers. Since my negatives are all over the place, I tend to do a lot in PS before printing.
If you can't do darkroom printing anymore, I think you'll be able to do inkjet prints and be satisfied with the results. It's a learning curve, like anything else.
While I'm no expert, I would agree Paul's ink prints are very good.
I made several prints yesterday on Ilford Art 300 paper, and today I'll tone them in various toners, and see what the materials give me. Darkroom printing seems to me a bit more passive in this respect, compared to a digital workflow, or another way to put it might be, generous, depending on one's perspective. I'm not a great printer, able to wring a beautiful print from a junk negative, or to bend and contort my materials into delivering whatever my imagination dictates -- I try too keep things within range from the beginning so I can make an essentially straight darkroom print. If I get everything right, my prints are as good as the materials they're made with, so I try to chose the best materials I can find. This commits me to the processes and problems we most generally discuss here -- fitting the scene onto the film, and the film onto the paper, with all the little details and controversies along the way, but all of this is within the context of the materials.
So, the way I read the OP's question is: are inkjet materials as good as silver materials? This is a far simpler question than one about comparisons of prints, or workflows, though I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to it. I will say that the best prints I've ever personally seen are carbon prints, which might have more in common with inkjet prints than with silver prints, and I suspect that digital prints will inevitably eclipse all other varieties by any objective metric.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Marty Knapp is a reasonably well known traditional black and white printer in this area making strictly cold tone prints. When he lost his lease on the darkroom he started printing
inkjet and the results would probably look identical to the average observer. But he knew
exactly what he wanted and worked hard to precisely replicate the look previously achieved in the darkroom. With the specific kind of toning I happen to do in the darkroom
I think would be impossible to replicate that way; and if I was oriented toward inkjet I would simply select images better suited to that approach. But from a teaching standpoint,
I think there is still a big advantage when people learn to pay their dues and slow down,
and learn to see, and learn to evaluate image tones. Both a view camera background and
traditional darkroom skills are helpful in this respect, regardless where you finally land.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Reflecting of the digital vs analogue discussions that pop up on this forum with regularity, it strikes me that they all seem to be universally brought by the digital crowd as if they are seeking a personal and public vindication for their decision to spend zillions of dollars on a technology that at its best faithfully reproduces the old. You never see an "analogue is better than digital" thread started by the analogue crowd but always the opposite in which the latter, few that we are, spring to the defense of the analogue as if a knee-jerk reaction.
Thomas
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
The latest development (no pun intended) coming out of our darkroom is enlarged silver gelatin film that is then contacted onto emulsions.
A year ago we tested onto carbon and platinum with results we were pleased with. As of the last couple of months we have scanned negatives from a series of work that is part of a very large neg- enlarger -silver-wet- print project.(Ilford Warmtone)
Just for fun we scanned a difficult negative from this series , that had a extreme lighting ratio in the original scene.( this enlarger print was a root canal type of print to make but in PS not so bad)
First go around we made negs for platinum print and as expected when we laid the film on Ilford Warmtone the print was not correct.
Second go around we softened the curve in PS and outputted a second film... We then contacted on Ilford Warmtone, the negative was the same size as the enlarger final print.( We did have some difficulty and if I was to tweak I would lower the contrast another grade in PS)
But to our eyes the print was pretty dam good. We then matted the digital rendition and inserted the print with the larger body of work for the client to judge without any prior knowledge to what we were doing.
Conclusions were that the prints from enlarger and print from digital film were both equally appealling and the client really would not have been able to pick one over the other blind test.
There are some differences and yes a good tech can pick out digital artifacts and a good tech can pick out enlarger artifacts.
I am lucky enough to be able to see daily various outputs from different printers, Ink , RA4 , silver lambda and enlarger, and I have to say that certain projects benefit with more than one type of process and trying to pick on over the other is tough call.
We spend a lot of our time showing clients tests in various end printing medias and basically let them make their choice.
I have seen a few of Jon Cones Ink prints in direct comparison to my silver lambda prints , and for the images I saw I would have chosen his prints.
We are setting up a dedicated printer for Cone Inks (Piezo) and by doing so have pretty much all the end processes at our fingertips. Our clients benefit from this but it does make me work 7 days a week.
Personally I prefer an enlarger wet silver print, over any process, but I do see the day where I will split my time between that and tri colour carbon and gum , that are generated from digital capture or scans of colour film.
The best lay down of ink on paper that I have seen that rivals a silver print would be the Hannamuhle Bartya or the Exhibition Fibre. I think these prints could be intermixed with a silver wet print show and very few would be able to tell the difference.
I only like the rag cotton papers for colour work, at this point yet, I am playing with Exhibition Fibre to see if I can beat my RA4 colour prints.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Bob, I want to give one of your silver prints from digital file a spin later this year. Do you have a profile for soft proofing such?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bob carnie
The latest development (no pun intended) coming out of our darkroom is enlarged silver gelatin film that is then contacted onto emulsions.
A year ago we tested onto carbon and platinum with results we were pleased with. As of the last couple of months we have scanned negatives from a series of work that is part of a very large neg- enlarger -silver-wet- print project.(Ilford Warmtone)
Just for fun we scanned a difficult negative from this series , that had a extreme lighting ratio in the original scene.( this enlarger print was a root canal type of print to make but in PS not so bad)
First go around we made negs for platinum print and as expected when we laid the film on Ilford Warmtone the print was not correct.
Second go around we softened the curve in PS and outputted a second film... We then contacted on Ilford Warmtone, the negative was the same size as the enlarger final print.( We did have some difficulty and if I was to tweak I would lower the contrast another grade in PS)
But to our eyes the print was pretty dam good. We then matted the digital rendition and inserted the print with the larger body of work for the client to judge without any prior knowledge to what we were doing.
Conclusions were that the prints from enlarger and print from digital film were both equally appealling and the client really would not have been able to pick one over the other blind test.
There are some differences and yes a good tech can pick out digital artifacts and a good tech can pick out enlarger artifacts.
I am lucky enough to be able to see daily various outputs from different printers, Ink , RA4 , silver lambda and enlarger, and I have to say that certain projects benefit with more than one type of process and trying to pick on over the other is tough call.
We spend a lot of our time showing clients tests in various end printing medias and basically let them make their choice.
I have seen a few of Jon Cones Ink prints in direct comparison to my silver lambda prints , and for the images I saw I would have chosen his prints.
We are setting up a dedicated printer for Cone Inks (Piezo) and by doing so have pretty much all the end processes at our fingertips. Our clients benefit from this but it does make me work 7 days a week.
Personally I prefer an enlarger wet silver print, over any process, but I do see the day where I will split my time between that and tri colour carbon and gum , that are generated from digital capture or scans of colour film.
The best lay down of ink on paper that I have seen that rivals a silver print would be the Hannamuhle Bartya or the Exhibition Fibre. I think these prints could be intermixed with a silver wet print show and very few would be able to tell the difference.
I only like the rag cotton papers for colour work, at this point yet, I am playing with Exhibition Fibre to see if I can beat my RA4 colour prints.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
I personally like all high quality prints. I do have my personal preference for my own images, my own skill set, and my own budget (so see no point in investing in a whole new
way of doing things). I know people who can do really incredible digital printing with an
overhead of a about 10K per month and millions of dollars invested in their gear. Do these
images (undeniably competent) inspire me any more than the platinum prints than Julia
Cameron made in a chicken house? No.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
For an added point for discussion: to me the difference in quality between digital and silver printing is much different from the difference between digital and silver photography. Not saying that film is better than digital for taking a picture, but I think the difference between a picture taken on film and one taken on digital is much greater than the difference between silver and digital prints of a scanned B&W negative.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
PS thanks to Jay for making my day, again.
Obviously digital prints are coming from somewhere...at least, mine are. I'm trying to chimp the look of really good printing. Mostly I've seen really good repros in books, so that's what I'm trying to copy. I have a couple of books with superior reproductions and I'm just trying to get that look. I haven't had my hands on too many great wet prints (have a really nice one from Jay though), but I'd like to, just so that I have something more to shoot for. I'm tempted to buy one of Peter Turnley's prints from the sale coming up on the The Online Photographer, just to have a really great inkjet print from a master printer in my hands. But man...I've been blowing some money lately.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Kirk and others interested.
We are starting a press and go service on the lambda silver prints, every second Friday we will be running this paper. ( we of course would run every day if you wish, but the amount of chemicals required limits the run times) I will send anyone interested the specs for printing at bob@elevatordigital.ca ... It will be a minimum four feet of paper .. two sizes 30 inch roll and 20 inch roll by minimum four linear ft. As well we will look at doing a test and printer judgement. Usually I would make a 12 inch on the longest side test full image, make my call and print. I will have the prices nailed down soon, and we have found this type of service is very popular with our clients.
One thing to remember ... this is a tray , rolled process and is not the same as a machine print... we are rolling 8-10 ft at time and there is Human variances, printer (me) is part of this process and I will use my best judgement... Our first go around may not be perfect or could exceed your expectations.
A sample bartya ink print or any kind of print is always a good thing for us..... Adobe 1998 is our profile mode of choice and setting your L channel numbers to min highlight and min shadow points are critical for good lay down of tones. will be explained in my emails.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Not saying that film is better than digital for taking a picture, but I think the difference between a picture taken on film and one taken on digital is much greater than...
Absolutely! And that's the reason why many Hollywood directors have been slow to move to all digital photography notwithstanding the cost to digitize film which runs as much as $4 per frame!
Thomas
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sully75
I'm tempted to buy one of Peter Turnley's prints from the sale coming up on the The Online Photographer, just to have a really great inkjet print from a master printer in my hands.
The Peter Turnley prints in Mike's special offer are silver prints made by the master printer Voja Mitrovic. You'll have to look elsewhere for inkjets.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Gosh what crap! Do you want to hand a trumpet player a violin or visa versa, and then
ask which is best? It all relative to the printmaker and the image itself. One man's medicine
is another man's poison.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
Gosh what crap! Do you want to hand a trumpet player a violin or visa versa, and then
ask which is best? It all relative to the printmaker and the image itself. One man's medicine
is another man's poison.
I don't think it's crap at all. I remember a time when the question wold have been answered definitively in favor of wet prints, and now even die hard darkroom evangelists like yourself don't answer at all, preferring to claim apples and oranges relativity. That's crap.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
So how do you define it, Jay? Let's take an analogy. One image might look
wonderful on silver gelatin but bland in Pt/Pd, while another might lose all
its subtlety the other way around. Is one or the other inherently "better"?
And the even bigger variable isn't even the medium, but the individual
printmaker's affinity to it. And a high level of skill with anything isn't instantly learned. Is oil painting "better" than watercolor? Define better.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tgtaylor
Absolutely! And that's the reason why many Hollywood directors have been slow to move to all digital photography notwithstanding the cost to digitize film which runs as much as $4 per frame!
Thomas
I'd like to know where I can get a frame digitized for $4. That sounds like a good buy!
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oren Grad
The Peter Turnley prints in Mike's special offer are silver prints made by the master printer Voja Mitrovic. You'll have to look elsewhere for inkjets.
urps. Yeah. I knew that. I don't know why I said inkjet. I meant an awesome silver print. I'd like to have a few for comparison.
I bought a couple of Brooks Jensen's prints for the same reason. I think he's a good photographer but an awesome printmaker. His digital prints are or were $25 and were really, really nice. Done on inkjets, I believe. I have 2 squirreled away somewhere. I should get them out and have them near my desk.
P
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dakotah Jackson
Bottom line for me is that if you are doing digital printing to save money you are fooling yourself. If you are doing it because it offers you the fine control you seek and you like the results..., go for it and produce ever better work. The proof is in the prints and if you are good or use a good lab the results can be as good an anything out there.
There is a lot of room for creative work and no one way is right.
Unfortunately for me, room and resources dictate my printing method. I would absolutely love to get into wet printing but my only option is an expensive ($22/hour) dark room. I stumped up the cash for an Epson v700 scanner and 3880 printer. Personally, I'm blown away by the results of both but then I'm doing this for my own personal enjoyment and not selling my photography. Plus, I haven't been in this for long so have seen few real high quality prints :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dakotah Jackson
Both work well but digital is far more expensive over time than the darkroom. I can still print from glass plates to 20x24 negatives. I can't even get most zip disks to open any longer, same with a number of other types of older storage media. Too many CD's have developed glitches too quickly to be relied on without the image transfer every 3 years or so - just one more ongoing expense. Yes, you plan for it but most I know don't get it going til they lose a few images or files and then they have a rush project on their hands.
Who uses CDs or Zip disks for archival purposes anymore? If you do, you're crazy. Cloud storage is cheap, solid and reliable now. Archiving your digital images with services such as Amazon's S3 storage costs pennies. And surely Zip disks will hold a handful of images these days, if that. Sure, that doesn't help you if you've got a bunch of old zip disks and CDs that you used to use but my advice would be to get it off those and onto some form of Cloud storage immediately.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
So how do you define it, Jay? Let's take an analogy. One image might look
wonderful on silver gelatin but bland in Pt/Pd, while another might lose all
its subtlety the other way around. Is one or the other inherently "better"?
And the even bigger variable isn't even the medium, but the individual
printmaker's affinity to it. And a high level of skill with anything isn't instantly learned. Is oil painting "better" than watercolor? Define better.
You decided the question is "crap" because you interpreted it as being about subjective qualities, even though the OP's question was specifically about objective measurements. Rather than answer the question posed, you answered the one you prefer, and then call it crap. I don't have an answer for the OP because I don't know much about digital printing, but I assume there is an answer, as opposed to just dismissing the whole subject out of hand to feel superior.
-
Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?
The one difference between the two that will always differentiate them is that inkjet prints are machine-made and wet prints are man-made. The common expectation is that the latter are more valuable and should cost more than the former because a human being was fully engaged in its creation and was not the output of an automated mass production line of machines.
Thomas