Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.

[Bill L.]

Could some one please point me to some places or individuals with examples of "good" inkjet B&W images located in the SF bay area?

I'm not convinced that those images at the local gallery (both B&W and color) are representative of what can be achieved with current technology.



Bernice

I don't know the west coast scene, but if you are ever in Fla., check out Clyde Butcher's gallery. You can see both his inkjet and his silver prints. I was conviced enough that I have 4 of his inkjets.

Cheers!
Bill

[John NYC]

I don't know the west coast scene, but if you are ever in Fla., check out Clyde Butcher's gallery. You can see both his inkjet and his silver prints. I was conviced enough that I have 4 of his inkjets.

Cheers!
Bill

Interesting. I was at a talk at his studio just a year ago and he was completely discounting the longevity of anything but a real silver print. He must have changed his mind.

[Vaughn]

If you have the space, handling 16x20 fiber base prints gets to be routine, and at a bit over $2/sheet when I was making them, one pays attention. I have only made one 20x24, but I imagine it is much the same. Very large inkjets must be a bear to handle.

[Curt]

http://www.journalofvision.org/content/12/5/8.full

I have a Leonardo da Vinci notebook of his advice and his opinions are worthy of exploration. Is he an old fart?

[paulr]

It's interesting to see "smallish" prints referring to 11x14 and down. I consider 16x20, the largest size I'm set up to print, as big, 11x14 medium, or perhaps 11x14 is even big and 16x20 is "really big" . 8x10 is also medium, and smaller is small. I do keep 5x7 paper and print on that too, mainly from 35mm (and so far only on RC paper.)

16x20 is aka "PITA" for me. Part of this is a function of darkroom space. For how I work and where I'm set up now, 16x20 is workable but requires contortions. Keeping 16x20 fiber paper from creasing is challenging. I can imagine larger is of course even more difficult. Just the handling "floppiness" of 16x20 sometimes tempts me to go to RC in that size, at least for prints I plan to frame and put under glass anyway.

Fair enough! Substitute whatever adjectives you like for smallish and bigish. I just needed to call these ranges something. The names are arbitrary—look at coffee sizes.

When I did all my printing in the darkroom, my size definitions were more like yours. 9.5x11 was my standard, and I printed down to 4x5 contacts. 16x20 was an occasional event, and a nuissance, like you said.

My work has changed, though, and so have my perceptions. It's quite possible that all the big work I see on gallery and museum walls has shifted my idea of normal over the years. And the technology has made big prints easy. I can make 17x25 inkjet prints as easily as 8x10, and if I want bigger, I give the same file to my friend, who can match the colors and tones precisely and print up to 60" wide (I haven't had him print very big for me yet, but conceptually the only barrier is money). Technology has also made it easier to control the quality of big prints. My bigest darkroom print ever is a 40x50 mural I made for fun when I worked at a lab. It was done on a $50,000 HK horizontal enlarger and vacuum easel. And the quality isn't very good by my standards today. That secondary optical system, and no reasonable options for sharpening (I'm not man enought to make an unsharp mask the old fashioned way) really limit things. I can make a better quality 50" print today from my Nikon. But like most 50" prints, the one I have is plenty good when there's a couch between you and it.

[Michael Gordon]

Meaning what exactly? You print so that the print looks good at that distance?

Meaning that standing 1.5 times away from the distance of the corner-to-corner dimension of ANY print feels (to me) like the right distance to properly view an entire image. YMMV.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, Paul, all scanners have "secondary optical systems" too. Whatever lab and enlarger you're talking about must have had moss on the lens! I've yet to see any digital color print anywhere as crisp as the prints I routinely enlarge directly from LF negs or chromes. You must be one of those "normal viewing distance" guys yourself, if you hold that kind of ridiculous preconception!

[bob carnie]

What about Lenny Eiger, I think he prints piezo large and is in the bay area I think.

I don't actually know what well known artists are working with monochrome inkjet right now. One way to track down prints is to see if anyone is printing commercially with a system like Piezography in the bay area and have them show you samples. You could also order sample prints from John Cone, which show different inks on different papers, although he'll want $20 or $30.

I've got one b+w inkjet in a collection out there ... I don't know how you'd get your hands on it and I wouldn't want to hold it up as an example of what's possible!

[bob carnie]

Yes, exactly. If you can make a good silver print, then all you need to do make a good ink print is learn the tools. You don't need to relearn printing.

I would agree with this 100% . the hard part for me was not the principles of PS and ink printing , but rather learning how to move my fingers in synch with my thoughts around the PS program. Once I learned
a few key elements to workflow in the digital world it became very easy to make prints that could equal the look of my silver prints.(took me five years and thousands of dollars in training)

Yes, exactly. If you can make a good silver print, then all you need to do make a good ink print is learn the tools. You don't need to relearn printing.

For the purposes of answering questions about viewing distance, digital prints are an incredibly convenient tool. They allow you to experiment with resolution and sharpening in measured ways that you really can't in the darkroom. Even if your chosen medium is silver or gravure or whatever, you can learn a ton about subjective image quality by playing with your images in software. I had many of my assumptions shaken up.

[bob carnie]

I have no issues making enlargements in the darkroom that will equal ink prints. The set up use is made to do exactly this and if you are in a darkroom you are not completely familiar with I would find it hard to make large murals as well.