Cibachrome vs Digital Prints

[Paul_thomann@acm.org]

The Art Institute of Chicago just opened a new wing that has a gallery in it just for contemporary photography. All of the color work was Cibachrome and beautiful, as one would expect in a museum. So for either the photo curators or the artists themselves the answer is still Cibachrome.

[Kirk Gittings]

The Art Institute of Chicago just opened a new wing that has a gallery in it just for contemporary photography. All of the color work was Cibachrome and beautiful, as one would expect in a museum. So for either the photo curators or the artists themselves the answer is still Cibachrome.

Nonsense. I was just there photographing the modern wing and a number of the works in the current photography exhibit were Chromogenic Prints or what is known as C prints popularly. The Alec Soth and Epstein prints come to mind, but there may have been more. Also, I have a number of friends who have sold inkjet prints to the AIC. Their collection is based on the work of what they consider important artists and is not based on the media that they use.

[Brian Ellis]

It is great that we have this great site to compare opinions. I kindly disagree with Julian's last post regarding the skill level of printing in the dark room vs. digital darkroom. We can both agree that you need to use the process that makes you happy and keep you shooting. Which ever process is chosen, it will have it's challenges. Some people think that making adjustments on the computer is the same process as adjustments in the darkroom, I think they are wrong. There is a lot of work and skill that goes into a file before digital output, and the adjustments can be saved once the final is ready. There is no skill after the final process....just hit print when you need a print. With darkroom, you have to use your skill everytime you put a piece of paper on the easil. Everyprint gets the hardwork and skill...and mainly the love to goes into a final piece of art. . . . www.shaneknight.com

If you stop to think about what you actually do in a darkroom I think you'd see that most of the time is spent doing drudge work - setting up, mixing chemicals, maintaining temperatures, jiggling trays, moving prints from one tray to another, putting prints in the washer, taking them out of the washer, rinsing them, putting them in the toner, taking them out of the toner, setting them out to dry, etc. etc. Maybe you enjoy the drudge work and if so that's fine but that doesn't make it "creative" or mean that it requires any particular skill. There's a reason why many photographers who did their own darkroom work hired assistants if they could afford it. The assistants did the drudge work, freeing the photographer up to do the creative work. Unfortunately most darkroom printers don't have the luxury of assistants so they have to do all the drudge work themselves.

Once a print is finalized in the darkroom - exposure, contrast, dodging, burning, color balance for color prints, etc. - making further identical prints of the same negative is just more drudgery if you've kept decent notes. There's nothing that requires any creativity or skill to make a bunch of duplicate prints from the same negative once the first one has been made. I agree that there's no skill in reprinting digital prints either. Hit the "print" button and you're done. Which is the beauty of it. Something that used to be a lot of work with no reward is now done easier (and better) on the computer, freeing me up to do the things that actually do interest me and that do involve some creativity and imagination, i.e. making new prints.

Silver and color prints made in a darkroom aren't "hand made" in any usual sense of the phase. You're using machines - enlargers, timers, processors, washers, etc. - and chemicals to produce a print. All you use your hands for in actually creating a print is the very minimal amount of time spent dodging, burning, flashing, etc. And I see no difference from a "hand made" standpoint between waving a piece of paper under an enlarger light to dodge a print and using my hands to manipulate the dodge tool in Photoshop (just as an example). There is a difference of course but not from a "hand made" standpoint. The difference is that I can use the dodge tool in Photoshop with much greater flexibility and precision and to much better effect than I ever could use any of those hundreds of little pieces of cardboard cut in different shapes that I used to keep in my darkroom.

If you or anyone else enjoys doing darkroom work that's fine. It doesn't have to be justified by saying anything more than "I enjoy it" and digital printing doesn't have to be disparaged in order to justify darkroom work either. I used to enjoy it too until I saw what I could do digitally, which left me dissatisfied with the limitations of making silver or traditional color prints in a darkroom. But I don't think it can be justified on the ground that darkroom prints are any more "hand made" than prints made digitally or that there's a lot of artistic or creative time spent in a darkroom or that there's a lot of skill required to make multiple duplicate prints from the same negative in a darkroom.

[paulr]

Nonsense. I was just there photographing the modern wing and a number of the works in the current photography exhibit were Chromogenic Prints or what is known as C prints popularly. The Alec Soth and Epstein prints come to mind, but there may have been more. Also, I have a number of friends who have sold inkjet prints to the AIC. Their collection is based on the work of what they consider important artists and is not based on the media that they use.

I was just there last week. Kirk's right ... if anything I saw more type-c prints than cibachromes. And there were plenty of inkjets and lambda-type prints. They collect and show whatever kind of print the artist chose to make.

FWIW, I was more impressed by the architecture of the new wing than by most of the photographs.

[tgtaylor]

The assistants did the drudge work, freeing the photographer up to do the creative work. Unfortunately most darkroom printers don't have the luxury of assistants so they have to do all the drudge work themselves.

Once a print is finalized in the darkroom - exposure, contrast, dodging, burning, color balance for color prints, etc. - making further identical prints of the same negative is just more drudgery if you've kept decent notes. There's nothing that requires any creativity or skill to make a bunch of duplicate prints from the same negative once the first one has been made. I agree that there's no skill in reprinting digital prints either. Hit the "print" button and you're done. Which is the beauty of it. Something that used to be a lot of work with no reward is now done easier (and better) on the computer, freeing me up to do the things that actually do interest me and that do involve some creativity and imagination, i.e. making new prints.

Silver and color prints made in a darkroom aren't "hand made" in any usual sense of the phase. You're using machines - enlargers, timers, processors, washers, etc. - and chemicals to produce a print. All you use your hands for in actually creating a print is the very minimal amount of time spent dodging, burning, flashing, etc. And I see no difference from a "hand made" standpoint between waving a piece of paper under an enlarger light to dodge a print and using my hands to manipulate the dodge tool in Photoshop (just as an example). There is a difference of course but not from a "hand made" standpoint. The difference is that I can use the dodge tool in Photoshop with much greater flexibility and precision and to much better effect than I ever could use any of those hundreds of little pieces of cardboard cut in different shapes that I used to keep in my darkroom.

If you or anyone else enjoys doing darkroom work that's fine. It doesn't have to be justified by saying anything more than "I enjoy it" and digital printing doesn't have to be disparaged in order to justify darkroom work either. I used to enjoy it too until I saw what I could do digitally, which left me dissatisfied with the limitations of making silver or traditional color prints in a darkroom. But I don't think it can be justified on the ground that darkroom prints are any more "hand made" than prints made digitally or that there's a lot of artistic or creative time spent in a darkroom or that there's a lot of skill required to make multiple duplicate prints from the same negative in a darkroom.

As true as that may be, it doesn't apply to Lith Prints. Due to the process no two prints are exactly identical and the printer must make the decision based upon his or her own artistic taste of when to pull the print from the developer. In other words, the end result must be "previsualized."

[poco]

Silver and color prints made in a darkroom aren't "hand made" in any usual sense of the phase. You're using machines - enlargers, timers, processors, washers, etc. - and chemicals to produce a print. All you use your hands for in actually creating a print is the very minimal amount of time spent dodging, burning, flashing, etc. And I see no difference from a "hand made" standpoint between waving a piece of paper under an enlarger light to dodge a print and using my hands to manipulate the dodge tool in Photoshop (just as an example). There is a difference of course but not from a "hand made" standpoint. The difference is that I can use the dodge tool in Photoshop with much greater flexibility and precision and to much better effect than I ever could use any of those hundreds of little pieces of cardboard cut in different shapes that I used to keep in my darkroom.

Hell, I print digitally (at least color) and still recognize the absurdity of your argument. "Not handmade in any usual sense of the word?" If silver prints aren't handmade, then neither are the works of a potter creating a set of pots on a pottery wheel. From the pug machine and wheel all the way to the kiln, he's working with a bunch of machines and only using his hands at one step to "minimally" shape the outcome -- not unlike manually dodging and burning. By your definition of handmade, very little would make the cut anymore.

[Greg Miller]

Hell, I print digitally (at least color) and still recognize the absurdity of your argument. "Not handmade in any usual sense of the word?" If silver prints aren't handmade, then neither are the works of a potter creating a set of pots on a pottery wheel. From the pug machine and wheel all the way to the kiln, he's working with a bunch of machines and only using his hands at one step to "minimally" shape the outcome -- not unlike manually dodging and burning. By your definition of handmade, very little would make the cut anymore.

I have always felt that the arguments about the superiority of "hand made" prints to be specious. I realize this ultimately comes down to personal l preference, but there are 2 reasons that I have settled on.

1) Some people claim dark room prints are "hand made" because each print in a series will be slightly different than others, whereas digital prints will all look alike. I find the digital print to be superior in this regard because I would prefer to see a print that mimics the artist's vision most closely over a print that is unique because of the artist's inability to control the process.

2) The idea that a digital printer simply presses a button and a print spits out suggests that anyone (regardless of skill) can make a good digital print. The truth is that many photographers spend countless hours optimizing their image in Photoshop. Generally many more hours than what would be spent on any one wet dark room print. So while that does yield the ability to perform the last step of the process very efficiently, the total hours spend BY HAND optimizing the image in Photoshop may very well in fact be more total hours than the hours spent processing in the wet dark room, especially when considering a small print edition. Is fact that the artist's touch in Photoshop is done on a computer render it less valuable than the very similar artist's touch performed in a wet dark room? I suggest that the answer is no - in both cases the act of dodging, burning, optimizing contrast,... contribute much of what becomes a work of art; and the tools are just a matter of preference and both require much skill, training, and practice to execute well.


I suggest that both processes involve significant amounts of "hand made" effort of the artist, and both require ample amounts of skill and artistry of the artist.

[Marko]

Hell, I print digitally (at least color) and still recognize the absurdity of your argument. "Not handmade in any usual sense of the word?" If silver prints aren't handmade, then neither are the works of a potter creating a set of pots on a pottery wheel. From the pug machine and wheel all the way to the kiln, he's working with a bunch of machines and only using his hands at one step to "minimally" shape the outcome -- not unlike manually dodging and burning. By your definition of handmade, very little would make the cut anymore.

Only some of the alternative printers who mix their own emulsions and coat their own papers could match your definition of handmade and even they are turning to digital negatives and eliminating the "handmade" part of the process being discussed here.

[bob carnie]

All I can add is that when I make prints in the wet darkroom I am absolutely sure they are hand made, as I do wear hand condoms to protect my dainty fingers.
I also know after a long day on the keyboard I do wash my hands.

[Don Hutton]

Only some of the alternative printers who mix their own emulsions and coat their own papers could match your definition of handmade and even they are turning to digital negatives and eliminating the "handmade" part of the process being discussed here.

Marko

I'd disagree strongly that the use of a digital negative in creating an alternative process print elmininates the "handmade" part of the process. In general, it can simplify the matching of the negative to the emulsion being used with much more accuracy and efficiency (for example, for in camera negatives, there is often quite a bit of trial and error to match the correct "mixture" of restrainer and Pd to obtain a matching contrast and correct exposure for the negative when making a palladium print; whereas with a digital negative, the calibration of the negative to a specific mixture of restrainer and Pd as well as exposure, can simply remove some of the trial and error involved in making numerous time consuming tests). In no way would it impact the hand process of coating (or manufacturing emulsion like carbon tissue) the substrate, exposing it and developing it. It still is a "handmade" print (for whatever that is worth - and IMO, that's significant) despite the fact that the original image may not have been made on the same negative from which it was contact printed. A poor printer will only be able to make prints which are just as poor from original negatives as from digital negatives. The printmaker's craft, does not suddenly just "count for nothing" when a digital negative is being used. It has exactly the same importance in the production of the final print.