I am a fine art photographer, and I work almost exclusively in black&white, 4 x 5". I never thought I'd even consider making inkjet prints, but since my favorite paper (Agfa) has become unavailable, and there is no good alternative, I have had to think again. The problem with inkjet papers has been - compared to a fiber-base silver print - that the image appears to be on top of, instead of below the paper surface. There are some interesting new papers now (I have to admit I haven't seen them yet), that mimic the surface of an air-dried fiber-base print.
And then there are the very interesting new HP printers, with a clear ink cartridge, that hopefully will help the image to "sink" below the surface.
This is good news, because I don't want anyone to notice that my prints are made with a different technology. I have been selling prints for more than 25 years, and I wouldn't like a situation where a buyer says something like - "Hey, why does the print you sold me look so different to the one a friend of mine bought in 1995? It's the same picture, but it looks different."
Well - my printing does change over time - I print a little lighter now than ten years ago - but what I'm talking about here, is the feel of the paper.
Then there is image quality - and scanners.
At the moment I have two flatbeds - a 4990 and a V750. (I am not sure which one to keep, because they produce identical results.) Anyway, I've made some tests, scanning a couple of negatives, and printing 13 x 19" crops of the full scan (which is 26 x 33", 300 dpi), and compared these with traditional 26 x 33" prints made in my darkroom with a Schneider Apo-Componon HM 150 mm lens (at f/11, in case anyone's interested). Inkjet prints were made with an Epson 2400 on Epson Premium Luster. (too much texture for my taste, but 100 sheets came with the printer)
No USM or anything else was used during scanning (Epson Scan). In Photoshop, I ran Despeckle twice, then USM twice at something like 500 - 0.4 - 0. (these settings would of course vary with image content)
Having read quite a lot about the relatively low quality of flatbed scans, I was quite surprised to see that it was almost impossible to see any difference in quality between the two prints. I am nearsighted, so when I remove my glasses, I can examine very small details in a print. With my regular glasses (minus 4) on, the prints look identical. When I put on my reading glasses (minus 1) , still no difference. Without glasses, i can spot a difference in certain areas of the image - typically a distant, may be moss-covered mountainside with uniform tone, where the silver print is on the verge of revealing texture and detail. This is where the inkjet print falls short. These areas become a little muddy and washed-out, and get a hint of that typical digital look, that often appears if you apply too much noise removal. But the difference is quite subtle - if the silver print has a quality of 100, I'd say the inkjet is 95.
Now, 95 out of 100 is not perfect, so I am looking for a Poloraid Sprint Scan Ultra, that I hope can produce scans with a 105 or may be 110 quality. Better to be on the safe side. But a higher increase in quality than that would be inappropriate - for the same reasons I mentioned above. I want my prints to have the same feel and quality today as 10 or 20 years ago - it's what buyers expect, and that particular quality has become a part of my aesthetic.
I have never had a drum scan made, but if I did, I suspect that I would dislike the resulting prints. They would probably be stunningly sharp and detailed, but deviate so much from my standards, that they would look plain wrong. And there's a possibility that they would be so stunning that the technical brilliance would overshadow the image itself, and that's definetely something I wouldn't want.
But if I were to start from scratch as an artist today - well, that's another story ...
Bookmarks