wet darkroom vs. inkjet

[Jim collum]

its my opinion, whats not to get.

why argue against it, that makes no sense. none at all

like i said i did not quote anybody, i just made my own mind up

its a important idea that a lot of people think that inkjetting is kinda non photographic, and this thread starter needs to know this. it may be that this reality is important to him also.

why do it the easy way when there is more respect to be earnt by doing something right

it's not what you're saying it's how your saying it, and the little sneer you have when you say it (implied, but very very 'there'). "a lot of people" is a misnomer. You might as well be saying the earth is flat.. sure.. a lot of people say the earth is flat.. so you have to know that's true. If you feel the 'earth if flat' then fine.. but when you start telling people that, you'll find others speaking up.. and when you say the earth is flat , and imply that anyone who believes others are 'hacks', then you'll get an even louder reply.

saying , "i prefer to print on silver paper, using an enlarger", but allowing the respect to others who don't follow your way won't get you the rise that it seems you try to get. your remarks are volatile and meant to garner the response they are getting (ala troll)

[Paul Kierstead]

The distinction between photographing and printing is not relevant, because printing may or may not be photography, and photography may or may not involve printing.

Well, if you like, you can redefine photography, but it is not the production of a print. A photographer is one who photographs. It really is simple. It is not the production of a print. The final result that hangs on the wall is a collaboration between a printer and photographer; they maybe the same person or not. In either case, the generally accepted concept of photography is that it is some kind of "mechanical" reproduction of the original scene, possibly manipulated.

[Mike Anderson]

This is both a description of what is happening and an illustration of another fallacy: argumentum ad populum, usually referred to as the "democratic fallacy". No concensus of experts, no cabal of historians, no popular usage, can vote the truth....

I don't think the heated part of this thread is about "truth", but more about language and definitions, and I think human language is defined by popular use. I know some people disagree with that but that's my opinion.

Human language evolves, and internet forum threads evolve.

...Mike

[Brian Ellis]

your still doing it, my opinion stands.

cant you be big enough to to just let it be my opinion??

I certainly can. Some people think aliens abducted Elvis. You think photographs made on an ink jet printer aren't photographs. I let the Elvis people have their opinion, I let you have yours. No problem.

[cyrus]

Remember the customer is interested in your art, not how you made it, materials used, or the equipment used.

I strongly disagree. In fact quite the reverse. The workmanship and skill invovled in making a wet print will set it apart from the billions and billions of prints that soon any kid with a cellphone and a Photoshop app will be able to produce. A magazine publisher may not care but the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

[Jim collum]

I strongly disagree. In fact quite the reverse. The workmanship and skill invovled in making a wet print will set it apart from the billions and billions of prints that soon any kid with a cellphone and a Photoshop app will be able to produce. A magazine publisher may not care but the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

in the middle of a chat session with a curator of one of the leading photography galleries (probably one of the earliest ones in the US). She says that the medium is a very minor factor in the buying of a piece (these are pieces that range from a minimum of $1k to over $30K). the look that a particular medium brings to the image has more bearing. There are photographers she represents who only output to inkjet, that has no relevance on the price of the image. There are a few galleries that represent only non-digital work, but in that world, that's a marketing point more than anything else. The days of inkjet being the lesser alternative in the high end fine art market has been over for a bit now. It's all about the image first

[Merg Ross]

Until today, I enjoyed this thread for those who made every effort to answer the OP. Of course, there will always be, and should be, different technique and perhaps a bias toward one or another. I have mine, and stated it very early in the thread; I am a silver gelatin printer.

The important task before us as photographers, is to place our vision on a piece of paper, process being less important than vision, in my opinion. This comes from one who was raised on Edward Weston prints from an early age, and has equal respect for my friends who have chosen a different printing process; however, my respect is for their vision, process aside.

Before I take my last look at this very tired thread, I want to thank all of those who made a sincere effort to answer Brent, without an emotional outpouring or bias. I learned a good deal.

[paulr]

...the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

How do you know what collectors of fine art are actually buying these days? Where the most money is going? When I see contemporary work at high end galleries and at public collections, I see a mix of every kind of medium. Platinum, silver, c-prints, digital c-prints, inkjet prints, and everything else. The trend I've noticed is a predictable one; most of the ink prints and digital c-prints are from recent years, because it's recent technology. I just don't see evidence of the bias you describe.

Of note: the Sotheby's auction site doesn't even list the type of print. And the last time I checked their auction report, there were digital prints sold, to collectors, at prices over $40,000. So it would seem that collectors with big money have bigger things on their mind than printing technology.

And of course there are niche collectors who collect only platinum (or cyanotype, or hand-tinted bichromate prints, or whatever ...). That's the wonderful thing about art collectors; they are a diverse group with diverse tastes and eccentricities. You might sell a print someday for piles of money to someone who has a pigeon fetish, when he sees a pigeon barely visible in the corner of your photo. Stranger things happen!

[Kirk Gittings]

but the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

Not. Sure there are collectors who prefer platinum or silver, but to generalize to all "collectors of fine art" is ill informed. I can tell you from personal experience.

[rdenney]

why over complicate, your either a wannabee photographer or a wannabee inkjetter

Or you wannabee a troll who kicks anthills...again and again...for the enjoyment of watching the ants wiggle. Nothing you have said provides any illumination on a topic already blasted into oblivion many times on this forum.

Rick "thinking persuasion requires more depth than a half-sentence mantra repeated over and over, if indeed persuasion is the goal" Denney