I think it is a mistake to try and make inkjets look like (and compare them to) any other process. They are their own media, just as a pt/pd is different from a silver FB, is different from an albumen.
I like the look of the inkjet print on rag paper... it is unique to itself, and has qualities entirely different from other processes. I'll choose it when appropriate, and other media when the image and vision requires them.
I know how the 'hand made' trogladites feel. I kinda are one. Though only in the most minimalist way. I have aspiriations however. In another ten years or so I could be a full fledged curmudgeon AND an analog trog.
There's one sort of photography that is surely safe from the 'just as good as' crowd. Daguerotypes. Michael Reichmann has just included a segment with Mike Robinson and his daguerotype photography and printing in his Video Jurnal. It is truly a fascinating process and Robinson is an artist and technician of immense note. I bet THIS process is completely safe from modern tech ... in ANY form.
I suppose daguerotype truly is a dead art ... even though still being practiced by a handful of people. Robinson has made most of his tools and polishes his own self-silver-plated copper plates. He's also made his own cameras. Absolutely beautiful craftmanship and amazing functionality. His protrait prints come in a sealed case ... looking like a little book. About 3 1/2 x 5 inches. $750.00
Actually Jorge, to quote Butzi:
"This gives you a sort of 'platinum' look - warm midtones and highlights."
He even makes it clear that it is a "sort of" platinum look. In that, he is correct. I've been able to achieve OK results on certain inkjet papers....especially cotton rag papers as the DMax is lower and more closely mimics the pt/pl blacks. But in the end, it's all in the tones. With more work, we'll get closer. The answer as to why mimic the look is because I can whip off a 16x20 platinum "look" print in a matter of minutes compared to lengthy hours in the darkroom....although I think the work in the darkroom is rather fun! Once I nail down the look to my satisfaction, I'll be happy not to venture into the darkroom for that either.
Pissing match aside, I like the quality of print I get from my now obsolete Epson, but I was always one of those fools who shot chromes and then tried to print C-prints from internegs. I was sold on Epsons back around the 1100 era. I've been less happy with the monochromes, although the Harrington RIP is great for what it is. So the new genration of printers sounds wonderful to me.
I like all kinds of prints. I have an Iris from 1990 hanging in my garage. It has only faded a bit - pretty impressive. And so far, I have never seen an analog process that can match it's quality.
Until inkjets came along, the only way to make a good matte color print was very laborous and expensive, and even then the artist didn't have as much control over the process as they do now. If we measured analog print quality to that standard, rather than to toned silver fiber prints, then we'd find analog lacking.
And FWIW, I love toned silver analog prints. I spent ten years making them, and was pretty damn good at it IMHO. But I'm really glad I don't HAVE to make them in order to do my work.
"See Dave, this is one of the other things that drive many of us crazy. Why is there a need to "duplicate?"'
Please speak only for yourself. To speak for others is nearly always a presumption.
Certainly digital printing is now very good. Better in some areas than the old processes, certainly not as good in some others. It is also surely a different process, of which there are many in photography, giving the photogprapher many different choices. Of course it makes sense to compare the processes as they are here side by side, though "mine is better than yours" are usually an infant arguments.
Digital makes as beautiful prints as any other process. And in the end, the way it is printed or what it it is printed on doesn't matter. It is always about the picture, the photograph, not about the print.
Actually Dan,
You can do Carbon pigment printing on an Epson.... just keep the power cord out of the water ;-)
Please speak only for yourself.
If you read carefully I said "many of us," NOT ALL of us. So yes, I am speaking only for myself and those on this forum I know agree with me. I happen to think the way it is printed is important, so I am not surprised you dont agree with me...Luckily I did not speak for you, so save it bubba....
"If you read carefully I said "many of us," NOT ALL of us. So yes, I am speaking only for myself and those on this forum I know agree with me. I happen to think the way it is printed is important, so I am not surprised you dont agree with me...Luckily I did not speak for you, so save it bubba...."
Such certainty about others minds must by wonderful, no?
"so save it bubba...." "
Are you one of these Trailer Park Boys we see here on satellite television? Perhaps the one with the glasses and cats?
http://www.bbcamerica.com/genre/comedy_games/trailer_park_boys/trailer_park_boys.jsp
http://www.bbcamerica.com/genre/comedy_games/trailer_park_boys/trailer_park_boys_cast_bubbles.jsp
What I find interesting is "the way it is printed is important"...
Quite frankly, the way or method is of no consequence. It's the final result. Rather than getting hung up on nostalgia & romanticism of past methods, focus on the end result. A photographer that goes through an elaborate method and gets a lousy result doesn't win any awards for effort!
Such certainty about others minds must by wonderful, no?
Well, the same opinion has been expressed by others, so it is not certainty about others mind it is a fact if you had bothered to do a search. You must think you know it all to be so certain I dont speak for others who have my same opinion as well.....typical french.
No, actually I think you must be the redneck version of the french, but then you are so stuck up I am sure you all think you dont have them.....
Quite frankly, the way or method is of no consequence. It's the final result. Rather than getting hung up on nostalgia & romanticism of past methods, focus on the end result. A photographer that goes through an elaborate method and gets a lousy result doesn't win any awards for effort!
I disagree, the process is important and as much a part of the print as the subject of the print. If this is not true how come many chose to print in different methods or with different papers. You guys making ink jet prints all of the sudden are talking about different papers. If the process and materials is not important how come you all worry about this? WHy arent you all just happy with one paper? after all the process does not matter.....right?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks