Split Toning with QTR

[sanking]

I may have mentioned that the images I wanted to print were landscapes, most of them with flowing water (streams, falls, etc.). What I found that worked nicely was to use the sepia profile for enhanced matted at 100% for the shadows and the cool SE (not sure what this is but is very cool, bluish tone) for the highlights. Then I just blended it about 50/50 in the mid-tones.

If one likes carbon pigment neutral prints they probably would not like the look of these prints, but I think they are quite nice.

Sandy

Hi Sandy,
What did you come up with for a split that worked for you?

Peter

[mandoman7]

No question. That is why I referenced the term "better" to my own silver work of about two decades ago. The current pigment inkjet work is better because the prints are so clean and there is almost perfect control of tonal values. Of course, the split toning adds a real interesting look as well but whether one likes that is a subjective issue. I know many people who don't like anything but the most neutral of neutral tone prints. That is not me, however, as nearly all of my carbon transfer prints have a different tone as I am constantly experimenting with new tissues.

Sandy King

I've had a similar experience comparing recent 3800 prints to silver prints made 20 yrs. ago in the darkroom. I still have many mounted gelatin prints from the early 90's when I was doing galleries. Recent orders from those negatives provided an opportunity for comparison and it was illuminating. The upshot is that I feel comfortable selling my darkroom equipment now.

Concerning the warm tone vs neutral issue, which some feel strongly about, it always used to crack me up to see a magazine article on a platinum printer and the examples were essentially sepia colored digitally produced magazine prints, not platinums, but people would ooh and ahh, responding to the coloring apparently, because they were not looking at actual prints.

JY

[PViapiano]

The upshot is that I feel comfortable selling my darkroom equipment now.

Well, everyone sees things differently. I've had friends (laymen, mind you) who show me printed images that they absolutely love the quality of (they know I'm heavily into photography) and the photos have terrible color renditions, not properly color balanced, etc...others couldn't tell the difference btw inkjet and fibre if you held an 8-hour seminar on the subject, so I imagine most of the public is like this, too.

That being said, an artist has to please him/herself. It is an art, however which way you decide to realize your final image.

I, myself, at this moment am a quicker printer when using PS and inkjet printing. However, I can't say that my inkjet prints look better than my wet fibre. I've been wet printing for 1 1/2 years now, a babe in the woods, but it's getting better every day. I put a lot of time into it, and I care deeply about what I do.

For me, there is no deeper satisfaction in photography than to make a beautiful wet print in the darkroom or to make an exquisite pt/pd print. The journey of getting there is the reward for me...

A little off-thread, I know, and not necessarily directed at anyone in particular, but wanted to post as a continuation of my last post in this thread...

[PViapiano]

By the way, mandoman...

You have some beautiful images on your site! Just visited there and enjoyed myself...

I've PM'd you as well...

Paul

[Daniel Grenier]

.....That is why I referenced the term "better" to my own silver work of about two decades ago...... Sandy King

Sandy.

Results of this exercise aside, I'd interested in your thoughts on the actual prints themselves (silver vs inkjet). I mean the physical thing - the man-made silver, carbon, kallitype versus the machine-made inkjet.

Personnaly, as a small time collector, I have a definite reverence and admiration for the well crafted hand made silver and platinum print that I just cannot garner (read spend money on) the inkjet print and I would like to hear your sentiments on this topic.

(Now all you epson-only types back off. I am asking the OP here- not you. And no, I am not interested in an endless digital/analog debate )

Thanks Sandy.

Daniel

[mandoman7]

By the way, mandoman...

You have some beautiful images on your site! Just visited there and enjoyed myself...

I've PM'd you as well...

Paul

Thanks Paul. My hands were in the soup for a few years, I took a break, and now am back at it with a different perspective on numerous levels. I totally agree with your point that the process is tied in with the artist's intentions and results, and that certain challenges can actually further rather than limit the distillation of an idea.

JY

[sanking]

Daniel,

It has been a long road. One of the main reasons I got involved in alternative printing more than two decades ago (and I have good printing skills in several different processes, including carbon transfer, kallitype and pt./pd) is that I could not get the look I wanted in silver. I have always placed a lot of importance on the surface qualities of prints (texture, sheen, dimensionality, etc) and silver prints simply do not do it for me. Never did, and two decades ago it was not digital versus analog question. I simply liked more making home made prints with a variety of different "looks." So it should not come as a surprise to anyone that I actually prefer the look of a well-made inkjet print to most silver prints, and especially silver prints on glossy papers.

That said, at this point in time I am primarily, almost exclusively, interested in making carbon transfer prints. The process is so flexible that it allows for a wide variety of looks, from matte surface prints on lightly sized art papers to prints on baked white enamel surfaces that will just blow your mind with the tri-dimensional qualitiy. This is how I spend a large part of my time, trying to make the most perfect carbon transfer print I can make. I love the process, and I love the beauty of the final product.

But, I do like the look of inkjet prints, especially those that are split toned as this is something I can not do in carbon, at least not without a huge amount of work. And that would be a huge amount of work on top of what already is a huge amount of work since I basically already make all of my materials, including the carbon tissue, the final support papers, prepping the aluminum supports, etc.

I don't know if that answered your question. I am definitely not an anti-digital type, in fact I print almost exclusively from digital negatives that I adjust in Photoshop. I am just personally not interested in making inkjet prints as my main creative outlet, though I was delighted to make a few for the specific exhibition in question. And it was kind of fun spending time learning what I could do today digitally with negatives from the past that I once printed in the wet darkroom.

BTW, I am attaching an image of a 12X18" carbon transfer print on an 18X24" sheet of aluminum that I made this past evening. I had previously printed the image in vandyke and in carbon transfer on paper and both were nice. But this one on aluminum is really a sight to see as the hard flat surface of the white enamel aluminum plate exaggerates in ways that one could never imagine the tri-dimensional quality of a carbon transfer print. Sadly, none of this will show on the monitor.


Sandy King

Sandy.

Results of this exercise aside, I'd interested in your thoughts on the actual prints themselves (silver vs inkjet). I mean the physical thing - the man-made silver, carbon, kallitype versus the machine-made inkjet.

Personnaly, as a small time collector, I have a definite reverence and admiration for the well crafted hand made silver and platinum print that I just cannot garner (read spend money on) the inkjet print and I would like to hear your sentiments on this topic.

(Now all you epson-only types back off. I am asking the OP here- not you. And no, I am not interested in an endless digital/analog debate )

Thanks Sandy.

Daniel

[D. Bryant]

Sadly, none of this will show on the monitor.


Sandy King

I bet that thing looks stunning up close and personal!

Don Bryant

[Daniel Grenier]

....BTW, I am attaching an image of a 12X18" carbon transfer print on an 18X24" sheet of aluminum.....Sandy King

Thank you kindly for your insightful comments, Sandy. Aliminum you say? Who knew! Can'twait to see one in person.

Best regards.

[PViapiano]

Wow...Sandy, I'd love to see a photo of that, aluminum support and all, in its environment...like sitting up against a wall in your office, or something like that...just to get a better idea.

Wonderful image...