Page 5 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 267

Thread: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

  1. #41
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    I'll simply repeat, I have never yet myself seen an inkjet black-and-white print that
    comes up to what I'd consider an excellent darkroom one. And I've looked at a lot of
    prints. Maybe someone can do it, but all the really good digital work I've seen has
    come through hybrid workflow or been done on expensive proprietary press technology. The public mainly buys subject matter which appeals to them; photographers themselves are more likely to buy or trade serious prints from other
    photographers, though there are a few discriminating other print collectors out there. For me it has nothing to do with what will sell, however, but about the best
    possible quality for my own particular form of vision. Personal workflow preferences
    and considerations of chemical exposure are also part of the equation which each of
    us must factor in. Note that I'm not denying that great print can be made digitally - I just have never seen one! They just look something other than "photographic",
    despite all the amazing mimicry photoshop is capable of.

  2. #42
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    I'll simply repeat, I have never yet myself seen an inkjet black-and-white print that comes up to what I'd consider an excellent darkroom one. And I've looked at a lot of prints.
    Repeating yourself doesn't constitute convincing rhetoric. It's just noisy.

    Either you haven't looked at good ink prints made on affordable technology, or your definition of "good" is so specific as to be tautological (like, "good" = looking exactly like a darkroom print).

    There are many of us here who were darkroom snobs, who got seduced by the qualities of ink. For me the moment happened before good inkjet printers existed, when I saw a Paul Strand book printed from quadtone separations prepared by Richard Benson. The plates looked better than any silver print I'd ever seen, Strand's included. I've had my eyes on ink ever since, and am currently happier with my piezography prints than my silver prints, at least much of the time. My printing setup, while a pain in the ass to maintain, cost less than my 150mm enlarging lens.


    For me it has nothing to do with what will sell, however, but about the best
    possible quality for my own particular form of vision. Personal workflow preferences
    and considerations of chemical exposure are also part of the equation which each of
    us must factor in.
    [emphasis mine]

    No one will argue with you about your personal vision or your prefered working style. Use the tools you like. Other people might appreciate it if their visions are likewise respected.

  3. #43
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Paul - one of the original questions was about tonality. While it is easy to correct a
    curve on PS and stretch it out, that's what we do routinely by our choice of film,
    dev, and printing paper anyway. I can understand the advantages of inkjet on really
    big prints, or for simplifying nuisance correction issues like spotting (which I'm going
    to be doing in a few minutes the old-fashioned way). Inkjet just handles tonality in
    a very different way, and to my eye it looks poster-ish, without the subtle distinctions I expect in a print. Inks also look like ink. It resembles a graphics process. That's OK if that's what you want; but it's not the same thing. People choose their respective media, and there are no doubt those who can do compelling work this way. But does it equal the subtle transitions of tonality in a good silver print. No way, Jose. Not to mention even more subtle media such as albumen, which I'm looking at in front of me at the moment. Permanence is another misunderstood issue. Just what do folks REALLY know about any specific media that's
    only been around a few years at best?

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Paul - one of the original questions was about tonality. While it is easy to correct a
    curve on PS and stretch it out, that's what we do routinely by our choice of film,
    dev, and printing paper anyway. I can understand the advantages of inkjet on really
    big prints, or for simplifying nuisance correction issues like spotting (which I'm going
    to be doing in a few minutes the old-fashioned way). Inkjet just handles tonality in
    a very different way, and to my eye it looks poster-ish, without the subtle distinctions I expect in a print. Inks also look like ink. It resembles a graphics process. That's OK if that's what you want; but it's not the same thing. People choose their respective media, and there are no doubt those who can do compelling work this way. But does it equal the subtle transitions of tonality in a good silver print. No way, Jose. Not to mention even more subtle media such as albumen, which I'm looking at in front of me at the moment. Permanence is another misunderstood issue. Just what do folks REALLY know about any specific media that's
    only been around a few years at best?
    There is more capacity for subtle transitions, not less, because there are more steps in an inkjet print. There are all levels of capability, just as there are in a darkroom.

    I have a print that I did in silver, platinum and inkjet. There is no comparison. I love platinum prints, carbon print, I love looking at old albumen and gravure prints. I even own some great examples. Inkjet can match the feel and atmosphere of any of those print types, if the printer wants to. Most folks today don't have the skill and/or are too hooked on contrast.

    I see no reason for people who lover darkroom prints not to continue. However, as far as capabilities go, I'm sorry, Drew, you just don't know what you are talking about. You might want to look at some work by some of the better printers.

    We should all know better (yea, including me) than to engage in these threads. It's almost as bad as the mac vs pc conversation.


    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  5. #45
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Lenny - I live right in the epicenter of tech and know big money digital printers doing proprietary things very few photographers have ever even heard of. But I personally make silver gelatin prints because it is practical for my lifestyle and obtains the particlar look I want. And with a silver-rich paper and some tricks, I can mimick a Pt/Pd effect quite nicely. But if I went around claiming that the tonality of silver is equal to that of platinum or albumen, any serious contact printer would probably howl with laughter. With inkjet you've got to use all those marvelous tools in PS precisely because the output medium isn't all that sensitive. So someone can token match prints in the two different media, so what? I could do the same thing in color: make a fuzzy Cibachrome of just the right set of hues and then have someone match it in inkjet. That's marketing, not an honest appraisal. You seem to be confusing two different issues. I'm am NOT claiming one particular media is better than another. What is "best" is what best suits the specific printmaker involved. Matisse could make wonderful scenes with nothing more than scrap colored Kraft paper and an ordinary pair of scissors. But the "tonality" was essentially zero.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Lenny - I live right in the epicenter of tech and know big money digital printers doing proprietary things very few photographers have ever even heard of. But I personally make silver gelatin prints because it is practical for my lifestyle and obtains the particlar look I want. And with a silver-rich paper and some tricks, I can mimick a Pt/Pd effect quite nicely. But if I went around claiming that the tonality of silver is equal to that of platinum or albumen, any serious contact printer would probably howl with laughter. With inkjet you've got to use all those marvelous tools in PS precisely because the output medium isn't all that sensitive. So someone can token match prints in the two different media, so what? I could do the same thing in color: make a fuzzy Cibachrome of just the right set of hues and then have someone match it in inkjet. That's marketing, not an honest appraisal. You seem to be confusing two different issues. I'm am NOT claiming one particular media is better than another. What is "best" is what best suits the specific printmaker involved. Matisse could make wonderful scenes with nothing more than scrap colored Kraft paper and an ordinary pair of scissors. But the "tonality" was essentially zero.
    It would actually be quite difficult to mimic what platinum can do with silver paper, unless you're looking at a contrasty platinum, or you're not looking very closely. However, that aside, if all you wanted to suggest is that "what's best is what suits the photographer", no one would have issue with your comments.

    In another post, you suggest that the materials and the inkjet medium are somewhat lacking. You ask "But does it equal the subtle transitions of tonality in a good silver print", implying that it doesn't.

    I also live here in the "nexus of everything" on the West coast. But that's another topic... I've done a lot of research, and I'm one of those people who "do things very few photographers have ever even heard of". There's only a small handful of printers who mix, or re-mix, their own inkjet ink. I know many of the top printers, and what is and is not possible. I've looked thru Jon Cone's incredible collection, I've gotten examples from other inkjet printers to show to fine printing classes. When you suggest it looks like ink, or that it looks like a poster, you just haven't seen anything by someone who knows what they're doing. San Francisco is full of mediocre printers and a few exceptional ones.

    I'm not going to tell anyone to change their printing medium. I had a lot of fun in the darkroom. But you can't tell me that the prints I'm making now are any less than what I've made before. I actually think they're better.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  7. #47
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Paul - a lot of us can routinely make prints technically better than Strand, AA, or any number of famous honchos could. That won't land any of us a chapter in some History of Photography blurb, or make some neurotic rich lady scream bids at an auction; but let's face it - we have better cameras, better lenses, better film, better
    paper, and know not only all the darkroom tricks of these past masters, but plenty of our own. Who knows how Strand or AA or Brett would print if they were alive
    today. But except for educational purposes, a digital knockoff of any of their works
    in a museum or whatever is presumptuous. They didn't print it, so it's not genuinely
    theirs. We're back to the Norsigian thing. Makes no difference to me what path someone takes. I admire fine work in any media - really. But someone trying to choose in the first place would be helped by knowing the pros and cons. And I'm assuming that the original question was referenced within a finite budget, so not just anything can come into play. A few bottles and trays, a pk of Dektol etc, a box of paper, and a spare bathroom is about all one needs to start out. Without giving out names, I sold bathroom prints to certain of these very famous honchos back in the day, using very simple gear indeed. I can't even remember how many basic enlargers I've been offered for free but didn't need.

  8. #48
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Wrong again, Lenny - I do know some of the best of the best, and you might be a bit
    surprised what I've pulled off with silver. Granted, my background is mainly in color;
    but there's nothing green about my silver skills either. And again, I really have no
    prejudice against digital workflow per se. But then I truly never have seen an inkjet
    print that struck me with the same awe as some of the platinum prints that Julia
    Cameron made in a chicken house well over a century ago, or that Watkins could
    pull off in albumen under less than ideal circumstances. Are we going forward,
    backwards, or merely standing still?

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    2,049

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    While the dilemma of the original poster was to silver or inkjet, I would want to point out that there is no substitute for capturing the original tonal scale on the original film, be that short or long, depending on the photographers vision. What one does afterward is a matter of the photographers vision also.

    Nate Potter, Austin TX.

  10. #50
    Steve Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Central Connecticut
    Posts
    795

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Potter View Post
    While the dilemma of the original poster was to silver or inkjet, I would want to point out that there is no substitute for capturing the original tonal scale on the original film, be that short or long, depending on the photographers vision. What one does afterward is a matter of the photographers vision also.

    Nate Potter, Austin TX.
    This statement seems more on point whereas the rest seems more subjective and personal opinion.


    Real photographs are born wet !

    www.PowerOfProcessTips.com

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
  •