Page 13 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 267

Thread: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

  1. #121
    Mike Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    681

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by ret wisner View Post
    no photographic output comes out of a inkjet machine, for obvious reasons (no photons used in the production of print)

    but if you do use light for production of negs and prints then it is a purely photographic process

    so as i said before, photographer or digital inkjetter

    these titles mean something

    digital output has little to do with photography
    What about a LightJet? That's digital and photon-based. Does your definition of photography explicitly exclude a digital phase? Laser printer?

    ...Mike

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    640

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by ret wisner View Post
    book is a book, photographer is a photographer.

    only a inkjetter can get this simple concept all mixed up, if i spent many hours and loads of money on being a inkjetter i would be loud and proud
    sooo ... an inkjet print is an inkjet print, a photographer is a photographer, no? But someone who's output medium is a book can't be a photographer, because no photons were sacrificed in the printing of the book. By your own logic, they can't be a photographer.

  3. #123
    hacker extraordinaire
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,331

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    A photography takes pictures. A printer (man and/or machine) prints pictures.
    Stop all this "photography versus printing" nonsense. 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. The only place to draw the line that makes sense is what is the media used. Not all pictures are photographs, and not all prints on paper are photographs, and not all photographs are prints!

    In my mind--and it breaks down rather fundamentally in my opinion--there is photography. It's a medium for picture making. Long and glorious tradition. And there are other media as well--things like digital art, painting, drawing, engraving, and digital printing. All these things are media for making pictures but not photographs.

    Camera negatives are photographs. Negative ones, but photographs nevertheless. If you shoot film in a camera, you can say you are a photographer. You create photographs.

    Silver prints are themselves photographs. What is silver printing except a rephotography process? They are traditionally photographs of camera negatives, but if they aren't, they are still photographs themselves. They could be photograms. They could be photographs of a digital negative. They are, however, photographs, so if you make silver prints you can say you are a photographer.

    Shooting film in a camera is photography (a photograph is created). Printing a negative is photography (a photograph is created). If you do either of those you are doing photography.

    If you shoot film and then scan and print inkjets, you are both a photographer and a digital artist (you make photographs and then scan them and make digital art).

    I can't account for the tendency of purely digital artists to get mad when you insist that they aren't doing photography, or of hybrid photographers when you point out that their inkjet prints are in fact not photographs. Why is that an insult? What's the big deal calling it like it is? When can we stop thinking that it's somehow inferior to make digital art? I can only attribute it to an insecurity/inferiority complex. It's ok guys. Inkjet prints can be art too. The sooner we get over this the better.It doesn't help anyone to have 453 different media all called "photography".
    Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
    --A=B by Petkovšek et. al.

  4. #124
    Virtually Grey Steve Gledhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Evesham, UK.
    Posts
    345

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ellis View Post
    ... I look at many of my old darkroom prints and see improvements that I could now make in Photoshop that were virtually impossible in a darkroom with the limited tools available there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Lee View Post
    Precisely !
    And another vote for that ...

    And now I shoot 5x4 film for scanning / photoshop / ink printing that I would never ever have contemplated shooting when the darkroom was the only way to make a print. I was a relatively early adopter (about 9 years ago) of scanning / photoshop / ink printing when things were nowhere near as good as they are now. It revitalised my interest and widened my horizons considerably.

    I could never make darkroom print to my complete satisfaction; but a good silver print is just as lovely as a good ink print.

  5. #125
    Brent
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Hi to Everyone- Again

    I want to thank everyone who responded to what was a loaded and perhaps a poorly worded question. In 1969 I returned home from a trip into Baniff and Jasper National Parks with my little Brownie black and white snapshots. They were in my pocket when I walked into the Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. Hanging there were prints by Adams, someone I had never heard of before. I looked at my little prints in my hand and compared them to what I was seeing on the walls. I was dumbfounded. “Who is this guy and how in the hell did he do this”, kept going through my head. Many years later I returned to the same exhibit site and looked at a retrospective of Gordon Parks’ work. It included some inkjets that were just stunning. So I have no bone to pick with ether process.
    I just reread George Dewolf’s book Creating The Digital Master Print. Curious what anybody who has read it thinks of it. If I read it correctly it it would seem that to excel one would need specific print drivers and inks, (Cone ), profiles, etc. It seems to suggest that If I’m happy with 16x20’s an Epson 750 and an epson 3880 would be in order. Looks to me that tough negatives or bigger prints would require a drum scan. Bigger prints I would sub out.

    I’ll rephrase my original question. Using an Epson 3880 printer, using their supplied inks, ( or Cone ), combined with the proper paper and profiles can I produce a print with the look of a well printed fiber based print?. Like Drew Wiley, I haven’t seen it, but admit to not having looked around for several years. Lenny Eiger states it can be done and I have no reason to disbelieve him, I’m just not going that far down the digital road. At least for now. I believe Bob Carnie suggested the possibility of using using both methods, and had some specific examples. Bob, not to worry, I won’t be sending anything off to you. I still have my 4x5 darkroom equipment, it’s just packed away. Jim Kitchen, I’m sorry about the lost of your darkroom.
    Even when I wasn’t printing it was good to know it was there. I just never could bring myself to have someone else print my personal work. It’s the subtle differences that count. As an experiment I once made three prints as close to identical as I could. One FB graded, one FB multi graded and one multi graded resin coated All Illford paper, all mounted. Showed it to a bunch of people who knew nothing about photography. Everyone of them picked the FB graded print as their favorite. FB multigrade was usually second, resin last. Nobody could say why, but clearly they could see a difference.

    This argument over equipment and technique has gone on forever. A stranger and I were once shooting the same subject in a national park and I thought he was going to have a stroke because we were not metering the scene the same way. Just couldn’t let it go. But it’s these discussions that lead to better work. I’m sure of my darkroom ability. I’m not sure what is possible with a modest inkjet setup. Once a photo is in the computer the control is just phenomenal. But if the output isn’t where a person wants it to be, then what is the point? As for learning curves, well that just helps the little gray cells in your head. And speaking personally, I don’t care which path is taken as long as it gets me to where I want to go. It’s been interesting to say the least, so I thank everyone for their input. A final question. Last time I used my 4x5 for B&W, I used TMAX , what’s anybody using now?

    Brent

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    81

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

    i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.

    as far as my opinion is concerned the term photograph is reserved for a traditional optical and chemical print.

    inkjets are just that inkjets, pls refrain from hijacking another craft/arts descriptive name and be proud of the populist name (inkjet) that has been chosen for your craft/art.

    than the arguement will end.....to be continued im sure

  7. #127
    Peter
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Morro Bay, Ca
    Posts
    727

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by ret wisner View Post
    wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

    i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.
    I was kind of surprised by your comment so I re-read the posts to try to find one where somebody was disrespectful to you. I couldn't find any. What disrespect are you talking about?


    Peter

  8. #128

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    833

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by Brent Jensen View Post
    Hi to Everyone- Again

    A final question. Last time I used my 4x5 for B&W, I used TMAX , what’s anybody using now?

    Brent
    I think you'll get many answers to this.. Me? I use TXP 320, along with FP4+

  9. #129
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by ret wisner View Post
    wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

    i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.
    You call it respectful? It looks allot like adolescent flamming to me......

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

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  10. #130

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    833

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    It is interesting to see this view continue. This is a 'battle' that seems to only be argued in very specific, gear related forums, that have a history of film usage. To the rest of the world (museums, galleries, publications, photographers (99.99999%), and the buying public... something similar to what she (http://www.susanburnstine.com/ ) produces (captured on film, printed on inkjet), are photographs. (she's also one of the bigger selling photographers, with prints hanging on walls next to some of the best silver printing photographers, and commanding the same price for her work.

    There was a brief 'battle' among the museums and galleries years ago, but that had more to do with archival quality of the actual piece being presented.

    It lasted a lot longer than they usually do.. with quite a bit of decent, relevant information being passed onto Brent, before getting mired in non-relevance. I figure another half dozen or so responses on film being used, and this thread gets locked with all the other ratholes

    Quote Originally Posted by ret wisner View Post
    wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

    i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.

    as far as my opinion is concerned the term photograph is reserved for a traditional optical and chemical print.

    inkjets are just that inkjets, pls refrain from hijacking another craft/arts descriptive name and be proud of the populist name (inkjet) that has been chosen for your craft/art.

    than the arguement will end.....to be continued im sure

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 2-Aug-2009, 21:05
  2. Darkroom Black Out
    By bob carnie in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19-Jul-2009, 14:10
  3. darkroom fans/vents
    By richard l. stack in forum Darkroom: Equipment
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18-Feb-2009, 23:21
  4. Getting back to the darkroom
    By John Chayka in forum Feedback
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24-Feb-2006, 09:58
  5. Wet Darkroom not Dead?
    By Jim Rhoades in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 16-Dec-2005, 05:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •