Holy mashed potatoes Batman-Willian Clift printing inkjet?!

[PViapiano]

I don't think it should matter to anyone whether this or that photographer is printing digital. None of this changes my view or ideas for my own work and it certainly doesn't validate a process for anyone. Just keep your head down and do good work.

[Robert Langham]

Whatever he is doing, I guarantee it's working. I'm a fairly good silver printer but the consistency and quality of the show made me blink. I took Kirk's word that there was an ink print in there, but I couldn't spot it and I had a week between double visitations, (before and after enchiladas at the Plaza), to think about it and then look again. I hope the show travels.

If and when you get to see the show, be sure and notice the sequencing, the position of the larger prints, the groupings, how the show reads walking down the left side first vs the right, the interior harmonics in the spaces that are sectioned off by smaller walls, the selection of prints down the little walls on the left, on the right, from the front, from the back, consider each wall as a stand-alone, et, et. The show is almost split- the two subjects aren't intermingled, but it's a very complex and interesting arrangement. I didn't want to over-think and analyze it, (I know, sounds exactly like what I am doing), but I wanted to consider what the artist had in mind. Clift hung it, according to the curator. I loved the way he made the jump from MSM to Shiprock. He's good.

I mentioned to Kay Ware that I saw some Okeefe's in the next gallery....well, what out-of-towner wouldn't walk 30 feet to see a few of those?...but they were such a different experience that I couldn't SEE them. I had to turn on my heel to get away.....from Okeefes! She loved that story.

One further note: I'm not a complete WC fanboy, just a general one. I thought the book printing lacked, especially in view of the exhibition print quality and it need some aggressive editing. It's got some fluff in it. The hung show is much leaner. I also don't think he engaged Shiprock as much as he should have- he only shoots some portions of it, completely ignoring the West Dike, The White Tower, the West side in general and some very graphic rock formations, et. He could have shed a little more blood up there. The caveat to my view is that I've been shooting at Shiprock for 40 years as well, spent nights trapped behind waterfalls, dealt with poltergeists, dust storms, rattlesnakes, kissing bugs, and midnight partiers so take all that with a grain of silver halide salt. He's better at MSM. He got a key.

It's a book you need on your shelf and a show not to be missed. I hope to see it one more time.

[mdm]

A print is a print is a print, only some are better than others.

[andreios]

Guys, I am not an expert on printing (athough I enjoy it very much) nor have I seen in person either W.C.'s show or a similar body of printed work by other great pinter. I got interested in his work based on recent discussions on this forum.
After reading this thread it I have to say that I feel slightly bad taste in my mouth. I feel with Kodachrome25 here. Why does it have be discussed over and over again? Why does someone "cast off" a photographer just because he is using a different (printing) technique, if he does it well? I watched the short interview with William Clift several times now, I think he is not only skilled but a very wise man and a discussion like this would be just the opposite of what he intends to achieve with his work. He want's people to look and to be touched. Not to argue...

[bob carnie]

Two years ago the opening in Contact I saw a small collection of dye transfer prints, among hundreds of silver , dye coupler and ink prints.
I immediately recognized them as dye transfers, they had a subtle warmth and glow that stood out in the show.
There still are some **maybe here** printing them and would like to chip in.

I have never made dye transfers , but I am now embarking on tri toned carbons and tri tone gums over pt pd. I am hoping that not only do I get the
look , but as well the permanence that I am more concerned about these days.

FWIW I have seen ink prints that I have made that can stand up to any silver or dye coupler print that I have made over the last 30 so years of printing. My only concern and it is personal, is that I am hoping they last as long as some boldly state they will.

I'm not a huge fan of ink jet prints - in principle - but - also in principle - it seems to me that they aren't (at least in theory) so different from dye transfer prints. I've actually seen a few inkjets I would say compare favorably with good dye transfers... just curious if anyone wants to pipe in on this or would dare compare them?

[jnantz]

that is fun news to hear kirk.
my only reservations about ink jet prints is longevity.
when someone spends so much time making a perfect image
i would hope the technology would allow that image to exist+look as it was intended for a long time.

unfortunately with the modern techniques for printing ink on rag or whatever it might be ...
no one has any idea how long the images will look "good" for ...
with the current inks and papers he used, do you know how long they are rated for ?

with b+w is it pretty much "forever" ? and it is the color sets that shift ?
or is it 6 of 1 and 1/2 dozen of another ...

i'm admittedly clueless

john

[Oren Grad]

unfortunately with the modern techniques for printing ink on rag or whatever it might be ...
no one has any idea how long the images will look "good" for ...

The same is true of current FB silver papers. The optical brighteners that are now near-ubiquitous in these papers will decay, we don't know anything about the formulation of the paper base itself, we don't know what storage and display conditions will be once the prints are out of our hands, and we don't know what atmospheric contaminants will be common and how they'll interact with silver images that will have been protectively toned to varying degrees ("light toning" with selenium is only partially protective, toning to completion radically changes image character and is done by few).

Short of printing everything in Pt/Pd or carbon on the finest rag paper that can be made to work, all we can do is choose the materials that best suit our taste, keep in touch with current knowledge about stability and preservation and do what we can to implement best-known processing, storage and display practices.

[Jim collum]

Well, I'm not sure about silver, but they've beat Cibachrome. A decade ago, a gallery I'm in sold a Law firm a large number of prints for their offices.. mine among others. She went back a few weeks ago, and they had placed a number of them in 'wrong' places.. direct sunlight. Mine look as good as they did a decade ago.. the Cibachromes have started to fade. There weren't any silver in the sun.. but I'd doubt they'd of shown any apparent degradation.

[Mark Sampson]

Last year I had the opportunity to see several Clift prints in a group show at UNM, I was happy to share that experience with Mr. Gittings and Ed Richards. They were beautiful photographs, vision and craft perfectly combined. But in the end, I'm not surprised if Mr. Clift makes some inkjet prints. He is an artist; he has pictures to show us; if his discerning eye has chosen a 'non-traditional' way to get what he wants on the paper, so be it. I'd say he is driven by his vision, and not by the technology, and that's exactly as it should be.

[Kirk Gittings]

I also don't think he engaged Shiprock as much as he should have- he only shoots some portions of it, completely ignoring the West Dike, The White Tower, the West side in general and some very graphic rock formations, et. He could have shed a little more blood up there.

That sounds like you think he was trying to thoroughly document it which I doubt he was-I think he was trying to get at its essential sense of place which doesn't require complete coverage. Likewise how do you know where he went and did not bother to to take images or if he did not print them or show them? As a MOF I think that even with a place as complex as SR that its essence could be captured in one single great image. For example you have shown in the other thread a ton of images from SR-some spectacular and some seemingly just records of what you saw. As a body of work presented in some manner to the public it would need some serious and thoughtful editing (as all bodies of work do). Some of the record shots IMHO, if included in an exhibition or book would weaken the overall impact-again IMHO. Such editing might leave areas of SR un-illustrated but with the strongest images presented leave the viewer with a much stronger sense of the place. In the WC SR show, IMHO it could have been edited down some to. To me there are a few fillers that don't say or contribute much.