Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Okay... I think I need to stop posting tonight. Every time I begin to think I'm being philosophical I make a complete fool of myself. Goodnight to you all and may God speed...

[Barry Kirsten]

By all means, David, do work with that method which is practical for you. Although I don't particarly care for setting up the trays, cleaning them when through, and drying the RC prints with a hand dryer or setting up the screens for the fiber, the silver print is the most practical method for me since I am currently a better silver printer than digital printer.

But lets face it: How many images are you really going to print regardless of the method? True if you are an accomplished software jockey you can probably work thru a successful print quicker than in the darkroom but the savings in time shouldn't be all that great as it takes the printer time to print the negative just as it takes 3 to 3.5 minutes to process an RC or Fiber print. You have to dry the wet print – about another 2 or 3 minutes with a hand dryer for RC but you have to wait for the ink to stabilize too (Epson says to wait at least 15 minutes before touching the print). The real savings in time comes when you need to print several copies of the same image. With digital you simply tell the printer to print x copies and can walk off; with wet prints you must print each one personally which, if you made careful notes of how you arrived at the final working proof, is simple but monotonous. You're just a machine at that point. You can't just walk away from it at that point like you can with digital. But how often do you do that?

Perhaps more compelling is the need to work with hazardous chemicals in the wet darkroom – the “fume room” so many have complained of. Using a citric acid stop bath and TF-5 for a fix I have eliminated practically all the fumes except from the Dektol which in my case is minimal as I process the paper in a separate room which is ventilated by an exhaust fan. I'm only in there 3 or 3.5 minutes at a time depending on the paper I'm printing on.

Finally I find silver printing more straight-forward and intuitive than digital printing where it is necessary to master the software which has the tendency to change. For example a certain keystroke on PS Version X may not produce the same result on Version Y with printer Z.

This thread has taken off like a fire, and I haven't finished reading it yet. I'd just like to comment that Thomas's work speaks for itself, regardless of the debate about which process is better. It's all about the end result in my opinion, method doesn't really enter into it.

[welly]

I read this whole thread with disgust. Oren's post, two or three before this one is the only intelligent comment that can be made. Where's that beating the dead horse image?

[LF_rookie_to_be]

You apparently feel that darkroom skills have more value than Photoshop skills. Which is perfectly fine, but doesn't make it a universal truth.

My drawing and painting skills bought me a used Mac with Adobe software. Later my Photoshop skills earned me most of the cash to buy the equipment for my darkroom and pay the rent for it. I spent countless hours there so far and managed to make a few good 36x50" C-prints in a drainage pipe, 20x24" FB prints in trays and develop C-41 4x5" sheets.

[Vaughn]

...It's all about the end result in my opinion, method doesn't really enter into it.

I am one of those -- "Its all about the journey." types -- so how I get there is as important as what is there at the end of the journey.

In other words, the process I use to make a print is as important as the print itself...from loading the film holders to framing the print. And this journey is just a side trip on the larger journey I make through life.

But I certainly do not expect others to make the same journey as I do -- and their journey is equally as important, and valid, as mine.

[sully75]

You guys are dancing all around it without directly answering the question. What's the matter? Are you afraid of admitting that the individual work of the craftsman is worth more than the craftsman’s machine output of the same piece?

Kirk: WikiPedia identifies both Gursky prints as Chromogenic C-Prints, which implies that they were created in the traditional darkroom. Suppose, though, Gursky did himself create a traditional darkroom print of the same image. Which one would you suppose to have the greater value: the darkroom version created by Gursky or the “machine made print” in your statement? If you were the buyer, which one would you buy (price not a consideration).

Thomas

I think people are not responding to you because you are being annoying and seem utterly convinced that you are correct. So it's not interesting and not really a conversation.

Personally images are important to me. There are photographers far greater than myself who use digital cameras and print digitally and do an amazing job of it. I'd be happy to have one of their prints. I also see a lot of crappy silver work, and people who seem to justify their existence based on the fact that they think they are doing something "pure". Anyway, whatever works. I want some emotional response to a photograph (or film/video/music/conversation/etc). I don't really care what form it comes in. I use the LF camera because I find that the working method has helped me make better pictures and I've learned a lot through the process. I print digitally because it works for me, my living situation, the amount of time I have, my workflow, etc. If there was to be no more film tomorrow, I'd probably continue to make pictures, with a digital camera, and hopefully I could make some good ones.

Anyway, I think you are flogging a horse here that no one is interested in watching you flog.

Re: Gursky, I know nothing about chromogenic prints, but I believe you can make a Digital C print.

Personally if I were the buyer of a Gursky print (which for the record, I'm not likely to be, although I like him, I'm a little short on dough) I'd probably want the one that struck me a bit more emotionally. I'm guessing that whoever does his printing does a pretty good job, whatever the form, so probably his digital and (if there are any) darkroom prints would both be pretty darn good.

[Preston]

I am one of those -- "Its all about the journey." types -- so how I get there is as important as what is there at the end of the journey.

In other words, the process I use to make a print is as important as the print itself...from loading the film holders to framing the print. And this journey is just a side trip on the larger journey I make through life.

But I certainly do not expect others to make the same journey as I do -- and their journey is equally as important, and valid, as mine.

Vaughn's comment pretty much sums it up for me. I did a lot of traditional B&W developing and printing in the 80's when I had access to a darkroom, and I truly enjoyed the entire process. Today, I print digitally and I enjoy that process, as well. Is one process and result better than the other? I haven't a clue, and it doesn't really matter: I enjoy photography and the work of others regardless of how it was done.

"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he marches to the beat of a different drummer" Henry David Thoreau

Make photographs! Have fun!

--P

[LF_rookie_to_be]

Re: Gursky, I know nothing about chromogenic prints, but I believe you can make a Digital C print.

Depends on your definition of "make". You can make a darkroom print of a C-41 negative originating 100% digitally, exposed on an LVT machine or some other type of film recorder. So it's "digital" and a "C-print".

Personally if I were the buyer of a Gursky print (which for the record, I'm not likely to be, although I like him, I'm a little short on dough) I'd probably want the one that struck me a bit more emotionally. I'm guessing that whoever does his printing does a pretty good job, whatever the form, so probably his digital and (if there are any) darkroom prints would both be pretty darn good.

Gursky ran his own colour darkroom until the mid-Eighties. Since around 1988, Grieger in Düsseldorf does all printing for him, and until 1995 or so they were all traditionally enlarged. Afterwards all his prints are exposed on a Lightjet-type machine (the real "digital C-print"). Some consist of two 60x170" sheets, but under ONE piece of acrylic glass. It has to strike you emotionally at least a bit when you see it in person.

But to be honest, a striking B&W FB print is a much more demanding task, creatively and technically.

[Brian Ellis]

HaHaHa . . . Now let's take you! You create a darkroom masterpiece, scan it and make an ink-jet copy. Like Rembrandt and Ansel you also put yours up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price. Suppose instead that you put both up for sale in your studio gallery. Which one are you going to price the higher or are you going to price both identical?

Thomas

A serious photographer making a serious print doesn't "scan it and make an ink jet copy."

HaHaHa - would you sound like less of a fool if you actually knew something about printing digitally?

[sully75]

But to be honest, a striking B&W FB print is a much more demanding task, creatively and technically.

To a large extent, I don't really care how stuff is made. Unless I'm trying to imitate it. I mean, I'm interested in the process that it took to make something, but as far as passing value on how it was made vis a vis the creativity of the maker, that's not that interesting to me.

I've done a lot of woodwork, and have met a lot of people who do it professionally (furniture makers and boatbuilders). It can be financially crushing, and I'd never diminish someone's creativity because they used a power tool over a hand tool.