Are Your Best B&W Inkjets Worth More Than Your Best B&W Wet Prints?

[dsphotog]

Most consumers don't know the difference, or care.... as long as the subject matter is to their liking.
If anyone actually buys a photograph, that is.

[Vaughn]

My 16x20 silver prints and 8x10 platinum prints sell for the same price, and an 8x10 carbon print sells for roughly twice that. Just a thought... I might price an 16x20 inkjet print about the same as a 16x20 silver gelatin print, but with replacement (at cost) in the case of fading or color shift for the life of the photographer and/or digital file. "Perceived value". Is there any other kind? LOL!

[rdenney]

"Perceived value". Is there any other kind? LOL!

Nope, there isn't. Markets set prices, though sellers think they do.

Part of the issue is that a lot of tradiitonal printers are moving to digital prints and trying to make them look just like their silver prints. That is a fool's errand, I think. In my experience, digital processes permit bigger moves than I was ever able to achieve under the enlarger. Thus, negatives that I could never print in silver to my satisfaction I can now print and achieve my visualization. Maybe that's a limitation on my technique, or maybe my visualization just exceeded that technique. I can live with that either way.

As to uniqueness, I've still made more silver prints than ink prints, and I make so few prints that those I do make ought to be worth millions, if rarity and uniqueness has value (which I rather doubt, until the fan club is bigger than the supply at least). But my ink prints are better. What they lack in the color of selenium toning that I love, they abundantly have in more closely matching my intentions. Of course, if I wanted to make each one different, I could do that--it's no big deal to leave the dodging and burning until last and then do that afresh for each print. I already find that I bring old images back into Photoshop when I print them again, after a time, because my visualization has changed. Thus, I reject the notion that ink printing from a computer demands that all prints be identical. The 20 prints I made for the Print Exchange this year was the biggest batch of prints of one image that I've ever made using the same interpretation. If a photographer believes in that the variability of hand-made interpretation for each print is important, Photoshop isn't stopping him.

But I will not apologize. You will never hear me say, "that's just an inkjet print." I heard that from a photographer when I was comparing an ink print to a silver print from the same negative. He'd done a better job with the silver print, but not because silver was better. The differences were in his interpretation--what he dodged and burned and by how much--not based on the inherent qualities of each print medium. The interpretation on the silver print was stronger, but I think that's because he worked at it harder. For him, the inkjet prints were what he stuffed into his bargain bin and he didn't seem to have put in the same effort. Too bad--I might have bought one had it been as strongly interpreted as the silver print. The inkjet prints had less value to him, so he made them have less value to the customer--a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those who don't value inkjet processes probably shouldn't use them. But that's their problem.

Rick "who works at inkjet prints harder than he ever did with silver prints" Denney

[Darin Boville]

>>Markets set prices<<

Tautology alert....

--Darin

[Greg Miller]

Another thread in this column as if your best inkjets surpass your best wet prints. But what about their perceived value?

A number of members on the forum, probably the majority, print digitally while a number print in the traditional darkroom. And, of course, there are a few that print using both mediums. The digital printers say that it takes them years to learn the software and the darkroom artists say that it takes years of darkroom work to become a proficient printer.

Me? Well I do have an ancient scanner (except for a P&S I shoot film exclusively), an equally ancient version of Photoshop (CS-3), and to match the preceding equipment an ancient inkjet (Epson 2200). While I confess to not having used my digital equipment very much and have made very little attempt to "learn" the software, the few digital prints that I have made were successful in that they came out looking pretty much like the slide they were made from. I posted both on this forum back then. So I print in the so-called darkroom (which is actually quite bright with a Thomas safelight) and if I ever sold any of my work I would have to say that I would charge more for the darkroom print than the inkjet for the following 2 reasons:

1. Each darkroom print is individually made by the artists who necessarily starts from a blank sheet of paper and personally brings it through the various steps employed to the final image. It's more "hand-crafted" than the inkjet.

2. The darkroom print, especially some of the so-called "alternative" photographic syntaxes, is much more labor intensive than the inkjet print and I for one would place a value on that labor.

There's also some precedent for my decision to charge more for a "real" darkroom print. You can, for example, still purchase a genuine Ansel Adams print for $20K or so from the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite but the cost for the inkjet reproduction of the same print will only cost you a few hundred dollars. And, of course, the artists working in oils, water colors, charcoal and the like charge far more for their prints than for the machine made reproduction.

What about you? What value would you place on your respective prints?

Thomas

Unless someone is selling a lot of prints for a meaningful amount of money, it doesn't really matter to anyone other than the photographer what any printing process is worth. If someone is selling a lot of prints for a meaningful amount of money, then it most likely is because their work is outstanding and/or has a high aesthetic value. The printing process would only be a secondary consideration.

Nobody but the photographer cares how much work went into making the print, or that each print individually made. Just like nobody cares how many miles you had to hike to get to the location. It only matters that they like the print, or not. People will buy a print that took 2 seconds to make if it speaks to them, or it has a high investment value. A print that took hours to make in the darkroom has zero value unless it speaks to someone or it has high investment value.

The argument about the value of an Adams inkjet print is not logical. If Ansel originally printed only with inkjet, the nkjet prints would not be reproductions. The Adams inkjet prints are reproductions today because Ansel did not print them. Peopel paying $20K are paying that amount because they are Adam's prints, not because they are silver prints.

[tgtaylor]

Greg, it is folly to separate work that “...is outstanding and/or has high aesthetic value...” from the process that was used to create it (i.e., the printing process) . As Ansel Adams put it: “The negative is the score and the print is the performance.”


A lot of people, such as Rick above, apparently equate the silver printing process with the F64 style of printing that was popularized by Ansel Adams. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that style it is but one of the many photographic syntax that are available to photographers. My advise to any photographer who truly wants to advance their art would be to step back and take a good hard look at the already existing possibilities before entering the never-ending chase of the masses to the latest and greatest gadget.

Oh, I just checked the AA Gallery in Yosemite and believe it or not you can purchase a matted and framed (Nielsen frame) 16x20 AA reproduction for a mere $125! The original, of course, would run you around $20K I imagine but I didn't check on its price.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

A reproduction of a print is a scan of a print printed digitally. When you work up a file from a scan of a negative the digital print is your final original work of art.

[Greg Miller]

Greg, it is folly to separate work that “...is outstanding and/or has high aesthetic value...” from the process that was used to create it (i.e., the printing process) . As Ansel Adams put it: “The negative is the score and the print is the performance.”


A lot of people, such as Rick above, apparently equate the silver printing process with the F64 style of printing that was popularized by Ansel Adams. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that style it is but one of the many photographic syntax that are available to photographers. My advise to any photographer who truly wants to advance their art would be to step back and take a good hard look at the already existing possibilities before entering the never-ending chase of the masses to the latest and greatest gadget.

Oh, I just checked the AA Gallery in Yosemite and believe it or not you can purchase a matted and framed (Nielsen frame) 16x20 AA reproduction for a mere $125! The original, of course, would run you around $20K I imagine but I didn't check on its price.

Thomas

I'm fully aware of the over-used Adam's quote. And actually for people working in color, and for some in B&W, Photoshop provides much greater capability for having a print truly represent the artist's vision (be the performance). I have a friend who makes his living as a fine art photographer and he spends about 80 hours per image in Photoshop making optimizations in order to make print that meets his vision.

But to address your point about "from the process that was used to create it", artists tend to use the process that yield the best print. For them. For me that is a digital print. And I'm sure the poeple who buy my prints much prefer the inkjet print that I amke, that matches my vision. As opposed to a print from using any other medium that would not match my vision as well as inkjet.

So I would actually price a silver print of mine less than an inkjet, because the final print (performance) would not match my vision as well as the inkjet.

[tgtaylor]

After spending “...about 80 hours per image in Photoshop making optimizations in order to make print that meets his vision” where the result of each slide and click of the mouse is instantly displayed on the monitor it can be reasonably concluded that he never had a “vision” to start with and after 80 hours merely surrendered to the one he finally arrived at.

But the topic of this thread is the perceived value of the process and not which is the superior. You say “I'm sure the poeple who buy my prints much prefer the inkjet print that I make” but do you offer them a choice? Do you display the best darkroom and digital version side-by-side from which they can choose from? Of course you don't.

Oh, and I just checked the AA Yosemite Gallery and you can purchase a Allen Ross archival darkroom print of an original AA negative matted and framed (14x17) for a mere $380 which is $255 more than the reproduction price quote above. So the AA Gallery prices their darkroom work higher.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

Alan Ross produces originals from the original negatives. The reproductions are scanned from prints I believe. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Having said that if the "repros" were from scanned film it is likely they would sell the silver prints for more as per my previous statements.