Anyone still printing Type C?

[tim atherton]

"Here is a new emerging trend. People who by art are starting to realize that computer generated images are not about a human endeavor of a talented and gifted individuals struggling to make exquisite images. It is rather about smart software and a lazy souls sitting in front of a computer for days on end constructing fictitious images and then hanging them in galleries as real photographs. Their images are forgeries. And guess what? People who buy art are not willing to pay for that. "

What a load of old horse manure!

there are educated buyers willing to pay upwards of a couple of hundred thousand dollars at times for such art - and on a more regualr basis buyers who happily part with two or three thousand dollars a time for a photograph

Burkett and Fatali ...Thomas Mangeleson - very nice pictures, good craft, but it's not really "art" most of the time. It's much more fine decor along the lines of Robert Bateman prints or work by Kincaid.

In addition, some of us prefer to photograph nature rather than set fire to it...

You are talking about a very narrow market with an equally narrow view of what constitutes art. The approach above may been fine for you, but it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about the creative act, artisitc endeavour and photography.

[Stephen Willard]

Tim, I suspect when you say "two or three thousand dollars a time for a photograph" you actually are referring to computer generated art. Perhaps you can share with us a website where computer generated art is selling for that much? If there is a market for this as you claim, then clearly, there should be MANY websites on the internet which solicit that market at those prices.

I do not believe my definition is narrow. I believe art cannot be art unless it is human made with human hands. Weaving, sewing, painting, welding, sculpturing, carving, sketching, pasting, and fine art printing require skillful hands and are examples of what constitutes art. The contents of the art is a reflection of the human vision, and the skill of the human hands are what molds into a physical and viewable object. People who possess both the vision and talent of the hands are special and are called artists. Those who are gifted become great artists. My beliefs are based on talking with my own clients and many other people in the art world. I do not think you will find to many people out there who by art believe pushing a mouse and punching a keyboard to control smart software is a act of skillful hands. To them it is more like "gaming" rather then painting.

So back to the initial question. Yes Al there are people out here who are using type C methods, and I encourage you to also do so. It has many advantages as outlined in "Post Exposure by Ctein" over the current approach of slide film. If you would like to sell prints then I would encourage you not to go digital. Selling digital prints is an uphill battle at best.

[Bruce Wehman]

Tim, you have a couple of good lines there. Ditto.

As far as the Type “C” process goes: No, I gave it up for digital 9 years ago. Since all of my color work is commercial, this is understandable. C has its niche in the snapshot/large print/home darkroom markets. It is and has been about the cheapest way to make a decent color print. Its less than stellar archival properties have kept it out of the big city, fine art market….with a few exceptions. Those who have been successful with it, like Richard Misrach and Joel Sternfeld, have taken advantage of the long scale that C provides to make images that rely heavily on pastel tones. Although there are emulsions available that provide a wide range of contrast and saturation, generally when you think of C you think of long tonal scale.

Like any other medium, it can be abused or used with sensitivity and vision.

[Al Seyle]

I have been making prints from color neg since the 1960s and truly enjoy the process and the results. I have also been using Photoshop extensively since ver. 1.0 (for my employer), so I know of it's virtues. Just wish there were a way to enlarge that PS image onto photo paper/film in my own lab. I know there are places that do that, but I like to have total control. Hmm...any one know of a digital enlarger head to fit my L1200?

Anyway, I have been reading this forum since it's inception and have noticed that most q&a's regarding color prints have been about digi printer output. So I wondered if very many are still shooting and printing color neg. Judging from the proportionately few responses to my query, it looks like the answer is, well, very few.

[Nick_3536]

The problem is most of these threads get hijacked by the digital forces. So many of us just ignore them.

[Kirk Gittings]

Printing for clients has declined over the years as high quality color Xerox and office scanners have become so prevelant. You make them one print which they then copy. You really can't control it. We mostly sell scans now anyway. But, after printing C prints, processing with a roller transport processor etc., for 25 years a few months ago I bought an Epson 4000 with Imageprint etc. etc. etc. For awhile, as I taught myself photoshop, I ran both depending on the job. It has now been a couple of months since I printed C prints. The machine is idle and I will probably be junking it soon to make more room in my darkroom. An Epson 4000 is a vastly more useful piece of technology than a C print processor. If you don't run a processor a few times a week the chemicals go bad, which means every time you go to print you have to mix a fresh batch for the tanks. I also think for commercial clients that digital prints are a superior product.

For art prints I never liked C prints anyway or the Fuji Crystal Archive either. While inkjet may not be perfect. the technology is getting there very very rapidly.

[tim atherton]

"For art prints I never liked C prints anyway or the Fuji Crystal Archive either. While inkjet may not be perfect. the technology is getting there very very rapidly."

And will most likely turn out to have much better longevity

[Mark_3899]

I make 16x20 and 20x24 C-prints. I've been making them first with EP-2 chemistry then RA-4. I shoot 4x5 color neg and I just like the exposure latittude and long tonal scale that Bruce mentions. I'm set up for it, the paper and chemistry is easily obtainable, and I know my materials. This is "Art", not commercial photography so I see no reason to change unless I have to. When I do have to change however, I don't see how that print is any less mine than a RA-4 print. After all I'm making the decisions. Do my hands have to move in the light path of the projected image to do something magical in making a print? I don't think so. I can look at a monitor and judge what I would like opened up or held back just the same, and I'll admit with more precision. As for Stephen, I work in the "Art World" there are people out there that buy the concept of an artist, nevermind something as tangible as a computer generated work.

[Paddy Quinn]

"You will find that color negative film has at least a 2.5x greater latitude than chromes which more than doubles my yields in the field. I can shoot under
much more severe lighting conitions than anyone using chromes. This is just one of the reasons I have not switched to dgital because it is based on
scanning chromes which I believe is not a valid film for using in outside light. A dynamic range of 3.5 to 4 stops is not plausible in nature where light
ranges can be 16+ stops"

Many photographers scan color negatives "I have not switched to digital because it is based on scanning chromes" is simply incorrect.

But why stop with latitude as a way of deciding what is or isn't valid in photography (are you trying to copy reality or make a photograph by the way?).

Photographs are two dimensional, the world is three (at least) so perhaps that should make all photographs invalid?

Then there are those pesky little rectangles that a photographs seems to put around everything? I don't see many of those out there in nature? I think that would invalidate a lot of photographs?

I also looked at some of those photographers you mentioned (I couldn't find where your work was online?) - they seem to impose a lot of perspective on their views - which is most certainly unnatural. I would have though the imposition of such an outdated Renaissance theory on the natural world should also invalidate most of their work? (take me to the vanishing point and I'll show you the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow)

[tim atherton]

" If there is a market for this as you claim, then clearly, there should be MANY websites on the internet which solicit that market at those prices. "

Here is one simple example from another thread (okay it's B&W) - but that seems like the typical sort of price for a digital inkjet B&W 20x24 price - some go for somethign above that, some below. There are plenty more out there like this


http://www.diallophotography.com/g_abroad.html

Nice to see even the Weston Gallery is selling digital prints...


http://www.westongallery.com/artists/j_pickford/joel_pickford.html