B&W Printing with New Epson Printers

[Kirk Gittings]

Many of our largeformat icons were either the the leading technological innovators of their day or preservationists of outdated processes. It all came down to the aesthetic and technological excellence of the print. Nothing else mattered to these masters.

There are two significant technological developements in my career which gave me significantly more artistic control and expression in my images. The first was the Zone System and the second was digital darkroom. Both are just great tools-not an end in themselves. There is merit in being in love with a process and being loyal to it. There is merit in pushing the boundaries of new technologies. Could you imagine an artistic culture that did not nourish both endevoures? We all would be the poorer for it-both traditionalists and explorers.

[David Luttmann]

Jorge,

Platinum Palladium printing is a process. Inkjet printing is a process. Silver Gel is a process. Changing papers within the stream is not changing the primary process. If what you want is a warmtone glossy print.....I don't care whether it is fiber based silver gel, inkjet, or other.....I'm going to choose which one is the better to my eyes. Same on matte. The underlying process is different, but the final print output is the same. Which brings us full circle. How you got to that glossy or matte sepia toned print doesn't matter....I just want the best one!

So yes, the process DOESN'T matter....it's the end result.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yes, yes....funny how only those doing ink jet prints mantain this fallacy that it is only the end result that matters.

Of course, you very conveniently forget that the chosen process affects the final result.... but then you all now can get the "look" you want at the push of a button, right?

[Paddy Quinn]

"Yes, yes....funny how only those doing ink jet prints mantain this fallacy that it is only the end result that matters."

Such sweeping generalizations are always a useful prop to a fallacious argument.

Spoken of certain approaches to traditional photography: "such photography suffers from an excessive concentration on the minutiae of printing and technique that leads to a loss of overall photographic vision"

It's the overall photographic vision that matters. The technique and methods that get you there must always be secondary.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It's the overall photographic vision that matters. The technique and methods that get you there must always be secondary.

I agree on the photographic vision statement Paddy, but the vision should also include the best process to bring it to reality and give the print the best impact.

As to the sweeping generalizations comment, I have yet to see anybody on this or any other forum that is not doing ink jet prints that believes the process does not matter and is not an integral part of the print. All you have to do is read all the threads about this topic and you will see the opnions evenly divided.

In the end, if the process does not matter, why is there a need to make ink jet prints that have the "look" of pt/pd prints, toned silver prints, etc, etc? After all if the process does not matter ink jet printers should not have a need to emulate any other process...no?

[Eric Leppanen]

Jorge,

Not trying to be naive here, but if a given "look" is what we are ultimately after, does it matter whether it results from an analog process or a digital one? Shouldn't we just be happy that, regardless of the workflow specifics, we got the result we wanted?

To date, I have not done digital B&W printing. I have analog prints done per my specifications at a custom B&W lab that is fortunately located near my home. Yet if a digital process came along that successfully blended the features I so value in analog fiber prints (tonality, luminosity, yes high DMAX, etc.) with the advantages of digital (precise selectivity, image correction, reduced diffraction when enlarging, etc.), I would switch processes in a heartbeat. So I guess I am your first example of a historically analog person who believes that the process does not ultimately matter; it is merely the tool to a creative end.

And if I choose to select a particular "look" that has been historically associated with a particular analog process (pt/pd, etc.), does it matter whether I achieve this digitally or not? Is a digital result somehow intrinsically a counterfeit? Does it really matter how I achieve my result when, in the eyes of myself and the people viewing my prints, the objective has been achieved?

We can certainly argue whether digital prints measure up to analog as a general B&W printmaking solution. To date, to my eyes, excluding certain exception cases, they have not. But the day when they will is coming, and for many printmaking applications that day may be soon (via the HP130 and the new Epson line).

And that, to me, will be a good thing.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Not trying to be naive here, but if a given "look" is what we are ultimately after, does it matter whether it results from an analog process or a digital one?

It does to me, and I suspect to many others on this forum as well as those buying prints.

While you try to make a clever argument by posing the question about the possible capability of ink jet prints to look exactly like whatever process, this addressess the issue of convenience and does not answer my question on the issue of the importance of the process. You really did not answer the question, if the process is not important why try to emulate it? Supposedly you are now capable with these new printers to make prints with an infinite number of tones, you say you have more control with PS, so then why are you not making ink jet prints now? If the process is not important, what is it about a silver print that in your opnion is better than an ink jet print and is stopping you from moving on? If as you say the process is not important, what are you waiting for?

If one follows your argument, I guess we can say it is the same thing to own a watch that looks exactly like a Rolex and owning a Rolex.....I disagree.

[David Luttmann]

Jorge,

Using your logic, if you saw two warmtoned glossy prints, that looked identical when presented behind glass....you'd have to ask the printer which one was done in a wet darkroom so you'd know which one you liked better. Ya, I can see how reasoning with you is futile. You appear to be completly hung up on the process rather than the result.....and I don't see the opinions being divided here.....you seem to be the only one defending the process rather than the result. If the results are the same....the process doesn't matter. And I'm finding that on prints sold to buyers behind glass.....the buyers are quite often choosing the digital print. This always came as a suprise to me in the beginning.....but now I just go with the flow.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I guess you think "reasoning" with me is futile because I dont agree with your mantra that the end product is all that matter. I dont mind that.

Apparently you have not been paying attention, and you very conveniently avoid answering the question that if the process is not important why try to duplicate it with ink jet prints? I am not hung up on the process only, but I do recognize that the process is as important to the final quality of the image as the content and subject. Something you guys doing ink jet print would like to make beleive is not important and will hope that people will accept a "look" rather than the real deal.....

[Paddy Quinn]

I missed the attribution off my quote ""such photography suffers from an excessive concentration ...etc". It was Paul Strand

Seperately:

"and will hope that people will accept a "look" rather than the real deal....."

and

"In the end your "logic" seems to say that having something that looks the
same as to the real thing is just fine.....isnt that wishful thinking?"

I'm intrigued by this possiblity of producing what are apparently "fake" images? How does that work?