If it's just pictures you want then either gelatin-silvers or ink-jets will do fine.
If you want photographs, objects bearing marks because they were struck by light, then only gelatin-silvers are the real thing.
If you want surfaces bearing marks because they were struck by ink then only ink-jets will do. Gelatin-silvers are no use.
The key reason for choosing between photographs or ink-jets is not down to appearances. Ink-jet technology, even now in its infancy, is largely capable of replicating the appearance of pictures executed in any medium. The choice hinges on the relationship the pictures have to subject matter and the way the astute viewer responds to this relationship.
Photographs are made by a physical sample of subject matter penetrating a sensitive surface. The penetrated surface is the photograph.
Ink-jets are generated by a mark making machine mapping the contents of an electronic file onto a piece of paper.
Photographs are evidence, ink-jets are testimony. The astute viewer who knows all of this can respond with goose bumps or yawns; their choice. The casual viewer doesn't care. It's all just pictures, isn't it?
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".
Yeah...
That's what I'm afraid of...
If it dazels they eye, what difference does it make how it's made? There will always be a "better" way to make a print but how much better verses effort only you can answer.
Greg Lockrey
Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.
I may have a different perspective than most here, since my day job involves creating something from nothing in 3d on a computer. So digital techniques don't scare me, or put me off, and I am very familier and comfortable in a digital world.
I think a digital print is still a print. While it may not be as high quality as a nice traditional print, I think for the most part it's adequate for my needs, which is to have a print to show people And in general, most people I show my prints to probably wouldn't know the difference from a digital print and a wet-room print anyway. And on top of that, I have no room in my apartment for a darkroom setup. I do hope one day to get a dark room setup with an enlarger and such when I have good room for it, but for now digital prints are doing just fine.
I don't print them myself, I have them printed elsewhere, done with light and chemicals (RA4), so kind of 1/2 way inbetween ink-jet and traditional. The paper and chemicals are still pretty much traditional, but the source of the projected image is digital.
My way of thinking is (and probably again, from my line of work) if you are in doubt about your technique (of printing), do a test with some other techniques. See what the visible difference is, and balance that against how much time and resources is taken to achieve that difference, and what skill level you have for each technique. Then all you need to do is decide which one you like best, taking into consideration which one is achievable within your tolerance of time/resources and skill level
Daniel Buck - 3d VFX artist
3d work: DanielBuck.net
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
Interesting suggestion.
In our house prints are made three ways: as silver-gelatin B&W wet prints on FB air dried glossy paper by me, as color inkjets by my wife after she's tweaked them into beautifulness in CS3, and, again, by her as hand pulled photogravures with 'real' ink that doesn't just sit on the surface because an intaglio press has driven it into the fiber of the paper. Each, in its own right, looks wonderful. Each, in its own right, was very satisfying to produce because the act of making it was satisfying. None is superior to another; just different.
Bookmarks