One of the issues that I find frustrating in terms of sharing information on archival ink printing is that everyone has allot of time and money tied up in different ink/rip/paper combinations and believe they are getting the best product they can from what they are currently using and invested in. We have to take their word for the quality of their prints because we can't see them. Yet I know that some of the combinations people defend here are inferior to others, sometimes grossly inferior to other combinations. I know this because I have done extensive testing on many papers and had the unique opportunity to test more than one inking/RIP system and compare my own prints side by side. But certainly I have not been able to test everything and I am behind the curve right now because I haven't tested UC3 inks.
I am trying to conceptualize a presentation for the next View Camera Conference that would bring together allot of varied working photographers/printers and approaches in a concrete and non-competitive way, something more like a print sharing round, where people would bring a couple of examples of their best work for the purpose of comparing papers, inks and RIPs.
I do not personally have the time, because of book projects etc., to do an ink print version of what Bruce Barlow did with silver papers and developers at the Monterey conference. That was extraordinary. If allot of people participated it could provide some valuable insights.
Would this have any value to people? Would people participate? I would be intersted in moderating such a round.
Bookmarks