I think if I am honest, I am not able to better a really well printed inkjet with a print made any other way, of course I still make prints many other ways because of their unique properties, the pleasure of making them and learning the process, but I live in hope. If I could make only inkjet prints that would be ok, and a very productive way to work. Dont feel guilty about it, make some more prints.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
I've been comparing prints recently and my conclusion is both are best, both are valid, both are the artifact / result of a complex process. I print pt / pd from digital negatives. To get a good digital negative you have to have a good inkjet print. They translate if the compensation curve is correct. Can I tell the difference? You bet! A platinum print has a glow that can't be achieved by a digital print. But a inkjet print is very close and can be very beautiful in its own right. Maybe the thing that attracts me to both is the non reflective surface. Pigment on paper or metal in paper.
A reference is Yumiko Izu who prints 8x10 in platinum and larger pigment. Why not have the best of both worlds?
A few years ago, I attended a Stieglitz exhibit. There were two prints hung side by side. Both prints were made from the same original negative. One was platinum, one was a photogravure. I couldn't tell the difference. Both were beautiful. I later looked up the price difference in the prints. The platinum print was worth 100 times the photogravure. I assume the difference in value was partly because the platinum print was a one off and the photogravure was one of many of the image.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks