Inkjet and Hunington Witherill

[darr]

Jorge: You could use a few years in charm school.

BTW, the brown photo I was alluding to was yours on APUG, not photo.net. It was a photo of an ancient statue and the right side had part of something sticking into the view breaking the stillness of the shot. Some folks commented that the crop was off and you did not agree, but I saw it that way as well. I know you hate my work; I would not expect you to like it.

As far as I read, no one has tried to sell one process over the other in the article this thread is about. I think they were just stating their opinion. You know everyone has opinions to give, even if you do not want to hear them we should be polite and respectful of others if we participate in public forums.

Now I expect you to blast me personally …

[David Luttmann]

Darr,

It probably won't compare to the insults, name calling and stalking he does with me.

[Brian Ellis]

"Funny, this lie that I have to be a master ink jet printer to be able to appreciate the qualities of one versus the other one. Is like saying I have to know how to build cars so I can tell the difference in quality between a Rolls Royce and a Ford Pinto."

I agree, you certainly don't have to know how to build those two cars to appreciate their qualities. But I'd suggest that if you're going to write an article comparing them (and expect to be taken seriously) you do at least have to spend some serious time driving both of them. Can you imagine a writer beginning an article about the two cars by saying "I haven't driven, or even ridden in, a Pinto or a Rolls Royce, but in this article I'm going to compare the two cars and explain why and in what ways one is superior to the other"?

When someone like Barnbaum writes an article telling us how bad he thinks digital printing is he has no credibility with anyone who has spent a lot of time learning how to make excellent digital prints because it's so patently obvious that he's never done so and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just rehashed the usual prejudices, in his case egregiously so because he constantly mixes up and confuses photographing with a digital camera and printing from scanned film.

I agree that you don't have to be a "master ink jet printer" (or a "master darkroom printer" for that matter) to appreciate their respective qualities but if you're going to write an article explaining why one of them is better than the other then in my opinion you should at least have some significant amount of personal experience with both of them.

[John_4185]

Jim Hunter Funny how those experienced in both methods appreciate both methods.....and those with no experience with digital rant on and on about how bad it is. Need we say more....

Now, Mr. Hunter, you don't know me nor what I do. I do digital all day for the Day Job, and I feel no need to defend it, and you need not defend your methods, either. Besides, you are not very good at it. Just move on, do your thing.

Personally I think we should all just turn this forum over to jj and Jorge since it's obvious that they already have all the answers.

I will let Jorge deal with that remark. He and I are as different as can be.

[darr]

Dave,

Problem children tend to grow up to be problem adults unless they die first.
I'm tough so we can exchange notes sometime. BTW, thank you for the compliment on my work earlier in this thread.

I enjoy reading your points of views on this forum as well as many others. I come to this forum for educated and technical points of view and I do find many. The digital talk interests me because I can see the economics and practicalities of it.

If Witherill is making a living with digital work as well as others, there is something to learn from it. I know Brooks Jensen just started selling his digital prints for $20.00 at his site and it will be interesting to see what impact that may have on selling fine art photography in general. I know from my past experience dealing with photography and the general public, it was always a surprise to see what people would buy.

From a marketing perspective, I think Brooks may be trying to make a name for himself through pricing affordability or he may want to place fine art photography in the hands of the masses at those prices. I am glad he is doing it just to see what impact it may have.

The question in my mind is: Will this help raise the value of traditional photography or will it take another place amongst the art market all together?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ah, you mean this one?



Funny, the photography curator of the city museum who gave me a show for next year loved this picture. BTW, these are not "old statues" they are call Los Atlantes (or the Atlanteans) and are Toltec warrior statues. These are not "brown prints" but platinum/palladium prints and what I said was that the tribute pole did not bother me as much as it seem to bother some of the people at APUG, mostly because in the 8x10 contact print the pole does not seem as intrusive.

So it seem that the "graphics" in photographic means other than what you think. So I will gladly go to charm school when you go to photography school.

[Paul Butzi]

There must be a reason why Witherill still charges more for his silver print than the ink jet prints, his rant not withstanding.


Well, the economies of silver printing and inkjet printing are substantially different. The replacement cost for a silver print is large simply because the process of producing another print is time intenstive - relative to producing another inkjet print.

Materials cost is about the same. Product development cost is about the same - perhaps a bit higher for the inkjet print. Based on personal experience, I tend to spend more time on an image digitally than I do when silver printing an image, primarily because it's possible to invest more time up front and expect it to be amortized across a larger number of prints. That is, if I spend eight hours developing a printing plan for a silver print, and the resulting plan then involved five minutes of easel time and ten minutes spent bleaching, I've raised the cost to produce each print. If I do the same amount of work in photoshop, the work is incorporated into each print made without further effort - the replacement cost of the print is the cost of materials and the time it takes to queue the image up on the printer.

This lower replacement cost means that you can optimize pricing for a larger volume.

All of this means that the optimum price point (the point where maximum revenue is generated) will be lower for an inkjet print. If I sell inkjet prints for half the price but get three times the sales, I've increased my profits by 50%.

I've cut my print prices several times since I started selling inkjet prints. Each time I cut prices, the sales volume increases by more than enough to cover the reduced price - that is, I charge less, sell more, and make more money. (actually, since profits from print sales are now dedicated to hurricane relief charity through the end of the year, I don't make more money, but more money goes to organizations like American Red Cross and Mercy Corps).

Assuming you're setting your prices based on a desire to earn money, and not the way art photographers usually set prices (ego gratification combined with gallery pressure), it makes sense to sell inkjet prints for less, even if the quality is superior. The higher quality means higher demand. The lower cost means larger volume. The two effects combine to increase profits.

[David Luttmann]

Darr,

It is the digital side of LF that interests me. While costly now, the backs will become more economical in the future. I remember 6MP DSLRs going for $30,000.

What interest me is the greater control in the digital darkroom. It is hard for some to accept, but as has been pointed out, they are typically the people who have refused to try. I work with one photographer who up to a short while ago quoted all the same nonsense you read on APUG. He was a medium format shooter. Now, he shoots solely with his new 1DS MK2. He was blown away. After being told by the uninformed about how it would take 100's of MP to equal his 6x7 chrome, he was surprised to get better quality from 17MP.

I noticed the same when I tested the Betterlight. I went to large format to obtain better quality....not just resolution but smoother tonality, etc. Prior to my test, I felt the same as some of those from APUG....that there was NO WAY it would equal 4x5. And I was right....it exceeded it. By that, I was able to extrapolate that the top Betterlight would exceed 8x10 film. Finally, photographers have taken notice and now we are reading tests, side by side, that show this to be the case. The only people disagreeing are, surprise, those who haven't seen or tested....but KNOW it can not be so simply because they say it can't.

I'll drop you an email as it seems to be the only way not to get attacked by the uninformed deadweight of these forums.

[David Luttmann]

Oh, and now that I can see the brown print, I would agree that stepping a little to the left would have hidden the pole and the right side could have been cropped out. Given a choice between this one and a cropped version from the left, I'm sure the curator would have chosen a cropped version.....as most have already suggested.

[darr]

Dave: Keep me in your digital info loop. I understand not wanting to be flamed publicly; who does? Beside, no one in their right mind wants to read it. Thanks!